Should we take Ray Comfort Serious? If no, what not?

paddoboy said:
Nonsense! Who said or inferred about any mythical IDer having to be subject to what he created, other then logic and common sense?
Click to expand...
Woah! Calm down dude!
I just brought to the surface, the slippery tactics of explicits, who always derail discussions with this nonsense. That’s all. Don’t shoot the messenger.
paddoboy said:
JFC mate, fair dinkum, you would make attempts of escaping some maximum high security prison!!
Or again as a great man noted....in all couragousness, honesty and sincerity....
Click to expand...
I’ve no clue what you’re talking about, and then you link me to Carl Sagan, saying the same kind of nonsense.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Woah! Calm down dude!
I just brought to the surface, the slippery tactics of explicits, who always derail discussions with this nonsense. That’s all. Don’t shoot the messenger.

I’ve no clue what you’re talking about, and then you link me to Carl Sagan, saying the same kind of nonsense.
Click to expand...
I'm as cool and as cute as a cucumber, and sure you know what I'm talking about...You know, you being slippery and in wiggling your way out of any situation with hard nosed bullshit.
Saying its nonsense is actually nonsense and just your way out of a sticky situation. It's a fair and honourable question.
 
paddoboy said:
Nonsense again, the truth is what is factual and is generally cast as a law within science circles.
Click to expand...
Facts, are what is factual.
The truth just is.
paddoboy said:
A theory is our bestest estimate/model according to the evidence available, some like the theory of evolution, being that close to fact, as being fact.
Click to expand...
Being “close to a fact” is not a fact. Therefore cannot be regarded as “truth”.
While there may be some truth in the evidence, it does not not mean that the overall idea is the “truth”. Unless you deem it to be. Then we end up with the secondary definition of truth, espoused by atheists.
paddoboy said:
By the way, I never saw your answer to the numerous queries of what differences there are between Darwinism and the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
Evolution happens. You don’t have to be a scientist, to know that.
Darwinism is an extrapolation of the fact of evolution, for which there is no common ground evidence, for its occurrence. It is is believed. That’s the difference.
paddoboy said:
NB: You do understand that the theory of evolution is often tinkered with, and improved as more and more data and knowledge becomes available?
Click to expand...
And so it should be. Because as of yet, it still remains a theory, unless you believe it is fact.
 
paddoboy said:
Saying its nonsense is actually nonsense and just your way out of a sticky situation. It's a fair and honourable question.
Click to expand...
It is an illogical question.
It basically says the universe brought itself into being, by stating that the creator Himself must have been created. That’s why I regard it as nonsensical.
 
Jan Ardena said:
You’re right. It seems to fail as a theory as well.
Thanks for the heads up.
Click to expand...
Jan please take the time to read Karl Popper ..it's a goggle away.. theory in science is like saying ..a unmovable fact..it's not as most folk throw around ..a casual thought or idea . A theory in science is not what we use as an expression of ..I just had a neat idea...it means in science a rock solid idea..a theory is way more than the way laymen throw it around.. I believe the word theory should be abandoned by science and something put in its place like..rock solid fact beyond argument..or..the truth as we know it...my point is when you read big bang theory or evolution theory ..one must read that as big bang fact or evolution fact...to casually dismiss anything as merely a "theory" is so wrong.
You simply can not say..it's only a theory..that is like saying ..it's only a proven fact beyond argument...please take the time to read Carl Popper ..the philosophy of science..I am not trying to change your view in any way but you need to know the knowledge I point you to...you are a clever and decent person but you need to include in your education an understanding of how science expresses itself... Theory=full on fact.
Alex
 
What amuses me, is that Creationists dismiss scientific Theory as dubious logic, but at the same time advance a complete fantasy as indisputable Truth. One has to stand in "awe" of such ironic comparison.....:eek:
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Jan please take the time to read Karl Popper ..it's a goggle away.. theory in science is like saying ..a unmovable fact..it's not as most folk throw around ..a casual thought or idea . A theory in science is not what we use as an expression of ..I just had a neat idea...it means in science a rock solid idea..a theory is way more than the way laymen throw it around.. I believe the word theory should be abandoned by science and something put in its place like..rock solid fact beyond argument..or..the truth as we know it...my point is when you read big bang theory or evolution theory ..one must read that as big bang fact or evolution fact...to casually dismiss anything as merely a "theory" is so wrong.
You simply can not say..it's only a theory..that is like saying ..it's only a proven fact beyond argument...please take the time to read Carl Popper ..the philosophy of science..I am not trying to change your view in any way but you need to know the knowledge I point you to...you are a clever and decent person but you need to include in your education an understanding of how science expresses itself... Theory=full on fact.
Alex
Click to expand...
You assume much, my dear sir.
I think you’re blinded by your belief, which means you automatically change the focus to the person who shows you a light.

What we are discussing is far beyond science.
We are actually driving the car, not talking about pistons, engine oil, and paintwork.
You need to focus.
 
Write4U said:
What amuses me, is that Creationists dismiss scientific Theory as dubious logic, but at the same time advance a complete fantasy as indisputable Truth. One has to stand in "awe" of such ironic comparison.....:eek:
Click to expand...
What if you changed “creationist” with “transgender”, or “black people”? Wouldn’t that be interesting? I dare say you would get backlash.
But somehow it’s okay with “creationist”?
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena said:
That’s kind of oppressive. You know that right.
But my metaphors are good.
When it comes to obtaining the truth, science, along with art, religion, and philosophy, are all in the same bag.
Click to expand...
Well I will give you this...if you have nothing to say you say it.
Alex
 
Jan Ardena said:
Facts, are what is factual.
The truth just is.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times definitions are brought to Jan's attention, he still doesn't get them.

Being “close to a fact” is not a fact. Therefore cannot be regarded as “truth”.
Click to expand...

God is not even remotely close to being a fact, hence not a truth.

While there may be some truth in the evidence, it does not not mean that the overall idea is the “truth”. Unless you deem it to be. Then we end up with the secondary definition of truth, espoused by atheists.
Click to expand...

That's an obvious lie considering the only definitions provided to you are the ones straight out of dictionaries.

Evolution happens. You don’t have to be a scientist, to know that.
Darwinism is an extrapolation of the fact of evolution, for which there is no common ground evidence, for its occurrence. It is is believed. That’s the difference.
Click to expand...

Jan once again confirms the truth that he factually does not understand evolution.

And so it should be. Because as of yet, it still remains a theory, unless you believe it is fact.
Click to expand...

Then, further confirms he doesn't know what a theory is. Well done, Jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
What if you changed “creationist” with “transgender”, or “black people”? Wouldn’t that be interesting? I dare say you would get backlash.
But somehow it’s okay with “creationist”?
Click to expand...

If a transgender or black person believed the universe was created by God, they would be called a "Creationist", which is no problem at all, hence your metaphors are pointless.
 
Jan Ardena said:
When it comes to obtaining the truth, science, along with art, religion, and philosophy, are all in the same bag.
Click to expand...

That would be true only if all of those categories presented facts. Often, religions do not present facts.
 
Jan Ardena said:
“Truth” doesn’t require facts.
Facts require “truth”.
Click to expand...

I see you're still contradicting definitions of words, Jan. How is it that you can honestly state something is "By Definition" on one thing and then turn around and toss definitions out the window for others?

*hint*

That's not being honest.
 
Write4U said:
Oh, but God is fact and truth, merely by believing it is so and because it is written!!!

(Coughs) Excuse me...... :)
Click to expand...

The common mistake of theists, to confuse books as being hard evidence of something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top