Bob Enyart has a lot more to talk about than just science.
Real Science Friday: 2011's List of Not So Old Things
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Ah, Tom, have you listened to the show? Pastor Bob was suggesting that the scientists were wrong (well except to those who agree with him) and the existence of manganese nodules on beer cans was evidence of a young earth. Not evidence that such nodules can form relatively quickly in certain conditions but evidence that his particular god's word and his particular understanding of those words were true.
It was the good Pastor Bob doing the misrepresenting.
Chris Chrusher
New member
It is a victory for YECs because how many people even know that the nodules CAN form quickly? Most OEEs teach that the nodules are a staple that proves belief in a young earth as wrong because the nodules can ONLY form slowly and therefore are proof that the earth is as old as they say. It was circular reasoning to begin with, now it's been blown up entirely because we see that they can and do form fast.
The glorification of foolishness and the celebration of ignorance in the name of faith always sets the human race back, Tommy.
Chris Chrusher
New member
And the faith of atheism has led the charge on that, Granite. By a million miles or more.
I know this kind of comeback might strike you as witty or profound but it's basically just silly.
The point stands: Enyart might like acting or pretending that science and other disciplines are simple to sort out, but quote mining isn't scholarship.
Chris Chrusher
New member
My goodness, you must be right. After all, you, called me silly. Perhaps you can correct me? I must have missed it somewhere, as I thought your beliefs were rooted in faith. Foolish me! What again is your empirical, undisputed evidence on the origin of the universe and how life began? I must be put in my place by your evidence!
So, if something is complex, it is unworthy of debate because you must sit down and be told what to believe by a professor. Only then will you all believe the same and agree. After all, professors are always right. Scientists are never wrong. Scientific discovery is complete, and evolution is true. Never mind the fact that there is no empirical evidence, it cannot be falsified, that it fails the scientific method. Let's not pay attention to that because Creationists believe in a silly thing like a God and we must mock them on message boards! Hahaha, let us chuckle at how ignorant they are! Don't they know that nothing created everything, information created itself, and life came from non-life and here I am, the smarty-poo Granite, intelligent enough to go onto interweb forums on a daily basis and mock those who believe in silly things! Hahaha!
Many of the Nazis were highly educated people. They would call you an ignoramus with lower intellect because you did not go to their universities and believe as they do. It's not that easy, you must learn more. Think harder. Eugenics is how we improve the human genepool, after all. What, in turn do you say to them? They're wrong? How?
I doubt it. You're not here for an actual discussion.
Considering you're new here and I'm not, that is a distinct possibility. Well done.
Yeah, again--this whole shtick of yours needs work.
No, but misrepresenting a complex issue by a layman who thinks he knows what he's talking about is, at the very least, less than completely honest.
They're not, and that's the point: creationists often act as though scientists are in absolute agreement, that scientific inquiry hasn't gone anywhere since Darwin, and then point to disputes among scientists as "proof" of evolution's obvious falsehood. You can't have it both ways.
See above. (Who is it that consistently has one explanation for fossil finds and soft tissue? Hint: it's not the evolutionists. So to accuse secular science of closing the books on inquiry is...kind of hypocritical.)
:yawn:
Nails on a chalkboard. Maybe that's what you're going for with this attempt at sarcasm. It's not your strong suit, one way or another...
A handful may have been, but they didn't predominate the movement. Shirer observed with horror in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that most of the Nazi elite were boorish, uneducated, and poorly read buffoons with banal taste in art, music, and culture. The Nazis took what had been one of the most educated and well cultured nations in the world and managed to drive it into the ground, but they were no fans of intellectuals, and indeed sneered at intellectualism as a Jewish/Bolshevist facade.
Newsflash, Chris...I'm half-Jewish. I doubt this is what the Nazis would have said to me (frankly, it's too much of a compliment by their standards). They certainly didn't waste time with an intellectual discourse with my ancestors in Russia and Poland. For your own sake, don't make a dumb mistake like this again.
Welcome to TOL.
Last edited:
Chris Chrusher
New member
Let us note that typical of atheist / leftist people who like to disrespect people who they personally disagree with is to (Point 1) Never have evidence to back their claims, (Point 2) resort to mockery and/or condescension, and ad hominem attacks. Let's see if you have gone against this, shall we?
Lack of evidence noted. See point 1.
Personal attack also noted. See point 2.
A big red "X" and a loud "BUZZZZZZ" just went off to everybody else but you, Granite.
Granite, did you see when I joined? Also, if I remember correctly, I joined even before then, but I could no longer log into my original profile when the board changed, so I made a second one. I have been here at least as long as you. I just have a LOT of things to do and don't feel the overwhelming desire to log into web forums every single day of my life to put down other peoples beliefs in thousands of posts like you do, Granite.
Also, this possibly qualifies as possibly a mix between points 1 and 2.
Ah. See point 2.
See point 1. And point 2? Yeah, both.
Congrats on actually presenting an argument to me outside of one filled only with mockery and condensation. I agree with you here that scientists are in disagreement and that new scientific discoveries often radically alter presuppositions.
The point that Enyart and other YEC's make, which seems oblivious to you and any other atheist that I know, is that cool, hard, unbiased science is very often - er, no, like mostly - in great conflict with OEE. Add to that, OEE's have no empirical evidence, just predictions. And when those predictions constantly get proven wrong too, we see atheists in denial, saying that YEC's are stupid/misleading/misled/wrong. Yet, despite this, they never provide evidence of Naturalistic origins. They just say, "You ain't lerned enuff!" Uh, duh? Hello?
Believing something without absolute empirical evidence is called faith. It is hypocritical, however, for atheists deny that they use faith to back their beliefs and then attack theists. It goes both ways. Have you used that in all of your posts, Granite, or just some?
Granite, did you again miss the point? OEE's believe that every fossil is millions of years old. YEC's believe that they probably aren't as old as OEE's say, and use evidence of YOUNG fossils with soft tissue as at least one point towards this. See the list for more.
Point 2, again duly noted.
Joseph Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Werner Best and others say hello from their hellholes. Much if not most of the key figures, particularly the leadership of the Third Reich were highly educated and cultured. They often looked towards Nietzsche, who is often a hero of so-called intellectuals. They looked towards Darwin as the reason to believe in exterminating those less evolved because they just knew better! They were educated! They gave particular attention to education and control of the German educational system. They WERE it! (Also, on a side-point, I read that many in academics were critical of Shirer's work and condemned at least parts of it. Who is right, anyways? What's the truth? Can we find the truth? Do we agree that it exists?)
Education is important, but it doesn't mean a thing if you were either mis-educated, or morally corrupt and use that empowerment for wrong. And, of course, you need (as they say) "useful idiots" in any movement that wrong, such as National Socialism. We're talking about the leaders. Key in any movement is to control the education and media, and educate with propaganda. Then, those people are highly educated, you see! I always love when people say, "education". Education in what? Education by whom? The point is that you can be MIS-educated. Someone can be taught wrong things, then say they have a higher education that someone who believes in right but was not taught the same thing. And that is the point you missed, Granite. Plus, you seem oblivious to the point that Bob has an education the last I checked. And that he never stops learning and passing along what he has learned to others. You are welcome to dispute it, but do so with facts and evidence, not that Bob is undereducated and disqualified from the debate or whatever point you're implying.
Granite, you are an atheist, correct? This means that you have rejected the faith of your ancestors that were persecuted and even killed for.
Then, you spend most of your free time on a Theology forum demeaning people who believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
And, although you don't know me and don't have to believe me (your choice), but I have never said anything bad about the Jewish people, and I believe in America standing with Israel, while the beliefs that so many of them stood for and died for have been cast off by you and then attacked?
You can demonize me all you want, but to me, your standpoint is quite hypocritical. I'm probably not the only one who thinks that though.
I've been here a long time (lurking more often than posting), but thanks for the welcome anyway.
Again, still waiting for that conclusive evidence that shows atheism is truth and all us theist-types are just dumb, misled folk who need to be mocked.
Lack of evidence noted. See point 1.
Personal attack also noted. See point 2.
A big red "X" and a loud "BUZZZZZZ" just went off to everybody else but you, Granite.
Granite, did you see when I joined? Also, if I remember correctly, I joined even before then, but I could no longer log into my original profile when the board changed, so I made a second one. I have been here at least as long as you. I just have a LOT of things to do and don't feel the overwhelming desire to log into web forums every single day of my life to put down other peoples beliefs in thousands of posts like you do, Granite.
Also, this possibly qualifies as possibly a mix between points 1 and 2.
Ah. See point 2.
See point 1. And point 2? Yeah, both.
Congrats on actually presenting an argument to me outside of one filled only with mockery and condensation. I agree with you here that scientists are in disagreement and that new scientific discoveries often radically alter presuppositions.
The point that Enyart and other YEC's make, which seems oblivious to you and any other atheist that I know, is that cool, hard, unbiased science is very often - er, no, like mostly - in great conflict with OEE. Add to that, OEE's have no empirical evidence, just predictions. And when those predictions constantly get proven wrong too, we see atheists in denial, saying that YEC's are stupid/misleading/misled/wrong. Yet, despite this, they never provide evidence of Naturalistic origins. They just say, "You ain't lerned enuff!" Uh, duh? Hello?
Believing something without absolute empirical evidence is called faith. It is hypocritical, however, for atheists deny that they use faith to back their beliefs and then attack theists. It goes both ways. Have you used that in all of your posts, Granite, or just some?
Granite, did you again miss the point? OEE's believe that every fossil is millions of years old. YEC's believe that they probably aren't as old as OEE's say, and use evidence of YOUNG fossils with soft tissue as at least one point towards this. See the list for more.
Point 2, again duly noted.
Joseph Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Werner Best and others say hello from their hellholes. Much if not most of the key figures, particularly the leadership of the Third Reich were highly educated and cultured. They often looked towards Nietzsche, who is often a hero of so-called intellectuals. They looked towards Darwin as the reason to believe in exterminating those less evolved because they just knew better! They were educated! They gave particular attention to education and control of the German educational system. They WERE it! (Also, on a side-point, I read that many in academics were critical of Shirer's work and condemned at least parts of it. Who is right, anyways? What's the truth? Can we find the truth? Do we agree that it exists?)
Education is important, but it doesn't mean a thing if you were either mis-educated, or morally corrupt and use that empowerment for wrong. And, of course, you need (as they say) "useful idiots" in any movement that wrong, such as National Socialism. We're talking about the leaders. Key in any movement is to control the education and media, and educate with propaganda. Then, those people are highly educated, you see! I always love when people say, "education". Education in what? Education by whom? The point is that you can be MIS-educated. Someone can be taught wrong things, then say they have a higher education that someone who believes in right but was not taught the same thing. And that is the point you missed, Granite. Plus, you seem oblivious to the point that Bob has an education the last I checked. And that he never stops learning and passing along what he has learned to others. You are welcome to dispute it, but do so with facts and evidence, not that Bob is undereducated and disqualified from the debate or whatever point you're implying.
Newsflash, Chris...I'm half-Jewish. I doubt this is what the Nazis would have said to me (frankly, it's too much of a compliment by their standards). They certainly didn't waste time with an intellectual discourse with my ancestors in Russia and Poland. For your own sake, don't make a dumb mistake like this again.
Granite, you are an atheist, correct? This means that you have rejected the faith of your ancestors that were persecuted and even killed for.
Then, you spend most of your free time on a Theology forum demeaning people who believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
And, although you don't know me and don't have to believe me (your choice), but I have never said anything bad about the Jewish people, and I believe in America standing with Israel, while the beliefs that so many of them stood for and died for have been cast off by you and then attacked?
You can demonize me all you want, but to me, your standpoint is quite hypocritical. I'm probably not the only one who thinks that though.
I've been here a long time (lurking more often than posting), but thanks for the welcome anyway.
Again, still waiting for that conclusive evidence that shows atheism is truth and all us theist-types are just dumb, misled folk who need to be mocked.
Take a look at my political affiliation or whatever it's called. Right under my avatar. When you jump to conclusions you often jump right off a cliff.
No, but I did glance at your post count.
:cheers:
Indeed, and it's something I try to avoid.
Which is a misguided and misleading point. Unless you want to believe that Horner and other paleontologists are involved in a massive worldwide coverup.
Even if this were true, what's your point? That higher education and an appreciation of culture leads to...genocide?
And they misunderstood and distorted his work. It's worth remembering Nietzsche was disgusted by anti-semitism.
Which shows how well they understood Darwin. In other words, not at all.
Also, on a side-point, I read that many in academics were critical of Shirer's work and condemned at least parts of it.
Shirer was there and saw the rise firsthand. Many of his critics were not.
On that we completely agree.
That's true of any totalitarian society.
Don't we all. My original point is that he's no expert, simply a layman, and he often doesn't seem to understand what he's talking about. Creationists have this schizophrenic attitude towards higher education: on the one hand they sneer at conventional experts and mainstream scientists, deriding them for their credentials and supposed "expertise" (the implication being if they were really "experts" they'd support creationism). And then creationists turn to diploma mills and "museums" that depict people riding dinosaurs ala The Flintstones. Creationists fawn over experts, sure--just their own.
Is this supposed to be news to me? (Technically, I rejected the Christianity I was raised in; Judaism was never a faith I practiced.)
...which just shows how little you know me.:smokie:
Ummm, okay. Stop with the attempts at personal attacks and potshots, then.
Lets assume for the moment that manganese nodules can form both quickly and slowly because that is what the scientists tell us. I suspect that neither of us are so well informed about the physics and chemistry of the process to dispute either evidence. If some nodules form very slowly in certain conditions what does that mean? If something occurs both slowly and quickly then there must be time for the slowly occuring process to take place.
Then perhaps Pastor Bob should stick to the non-science.
Should Zakath also refrain from discussing science? After all, Bob slaughtered him using scientific arguments. And I submit that Zakath could not refute his scientific arguments (he threw in the towel), nor can you refute them. And until you can refute the arguments he used in that debate, you should retract your assertion in this post.
Tom
Retract? No. Pastor Bob's understanding of science is tenuous at best. It is colored by the Biblical glasses he peers through, perhaps not much different than the magic glasses the Angel Moroni gave to Joseph Smith.
Yet Jukia never has anything corrective to say. Nothing that might show better the facts in each case. He and :loser: are just here to make sure that no mention of Pastor Enyart slips by without an insult being attached.
One wonders what their deal is... :idunno:
One wonders what their deal is... :idunno:
Actually Stripo if you were on top of your game you would note that at least with respect to Pastor Bob's claim that those beer can nodules were proof of His Word with respect to a young earth you would know that I did spend the time and effort to show he was misrepresenting the facts. Pastor Bob, like you is so frightened of the real world you cling to outrageous theological claims with no evidence.
Wow. Once. Four years ago. Aren't you special.