Creation apologetics

[TheHonestTheist]

/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U

[musicscreamsforyou]

Dull video.

There are expert scientists, convinced belivers in a literal divine creation. Why,because the evidence for materialism does not stack up. The evidence is a foundation of assumption. The dogma belongs more surely to materialists than to religeonists. But then you probably cannot discriminate between purveyors of false religeon and those who would introduce you to the living God. No matter you will meet him one day

[TheFallibleFiend]

Almost everything you have typed is silly or wrong. Creationists are almost universally from the lowest tiers among scientists. Their fame is in creationist circles - not among scientists. But this video was about sleaziness of apologetics, not creationism per se.

[musicscreamsforyou]

No I don't think so. Room doesn't permit an exhaustive list of scientists who are not from the lower tiers as you put it. For a start there is a book called ' In six days' by J F Ashton PhD which lists 50 scientists who believe in creation. Their fame is irrelevant as truth is not restricted to the famous or celebrated.

[TheFallibleFiend]

There are "scientists" who believe in creation. Few of them have credibility outside of creationist circles. That's why they're introduced as "the illustrious scientist so and so". 50 is a paltry number even if they were top scientists, but they're not. Ashton, for example, is a nobody.

[MightyTiny]

Very good video, by the way. :)

[Philos2006]

Great vid. Great logic. Thanks.

[slicedeep]

you make many good points. there are alot of flaky apologist out there. it seems, however, that you are doing the same. your post is one long ad hominem attack. you assume there are not honest arguments against darwinism and the like. that is misleading. or maybe it is what you believe. there are intellectually satisfying arguements against macroevolution and taking the position of ridicule as your methodology is counter productive on either side of the argument.

[TheFallibleFiend]

If there are "intellectually" satisfying arguments against macroevolution, I haven't read them and I haven't heard them. The crux of the problem with apology is that it starts out with Revealed Truth and then goes out and tries to prove it.

[MightyTiny]

I'd very much like to hear an example of an honest, intellectually satisfying argument against evolution. I've discussed these matters with creationists ranging from YECs to the ID camp for about a decade now, and have yet to run into an argument that I could not completely, thoroughly demolish. VERY few arguments show no dishonesty or distortion of evidence, and those few tend to be pretty vacuous. If you are confident that you know a good argument, then please PM me with it, I'd like to hear.

[CAndiron]

Especially compelling is Ray Comfort's analysis of the teleological implications of certain species of tropical flora.

[CAndiron]

I see you've never read Jack T Chick's classic work on the subject, "Big Daddy". It is a treasure trove of irrefutable argumentation against the fairy tale of evolution. Also Way of the Master radio makes frequent observations as to its self contradictory, irrational nature.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I have read "Big Daddy" in its entirety. Somewhere in my rat-pile I think I still have my original copy, as well as the 24,387 page annex of supporting references. I admit his evidence is overwhelming and his logic irrefutable. I don't know what I could have been thinking when I made this video.

[demonique666]

thanks for this!