Man-ofGod vs Evolution, etc.

[McQ]

For those of you interested in understanding a viewpoint different then yours:

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/

How about answering the direct questions instead of simply linking to a creationist site that has all of the arguments we already know? When will you understand that we know this stuff? I, and others here, know these viewpoints. Probably better than you do, based on your arguments here. Why do you fail to understand that some of us have been where you are now? Is that so hard to believe or grasp? So why don't you start being honest and try to see a viewpoint different from your own?

You've continued to ignore relevant questions posed to you, and ignore evidence presented to you, MOG. That borders on trolling. If you want to discuss topics, then do so, but if you are going to continue to ignore other members' posts, that will be a problem. If you do not wish to have meaningful discussions or debate, then this forum may not be the appropriate place for you to post. Totally up to you how you proceed. We welcome honest and open debate.

Edited to add: Looks like the site is very similar to other sites I've seen and probably run by Seventh Day Adventists. Also, what MOG didn't mention is that you have to pay a fee to see the "Amazing Discoveries" in it. MOG's post of this link is pretty much just an ad for that site. Big no-no. there, MOG. That's a strike.

I had a more emotional response to this post that I decided to delete.

I am sorry you felt like I was trolling, their is a lot of post here and it really is tiresome to try to answer every single one.  I do not want posting here to be my second job, just a hobby and hopefully fruitful discussion.  

The link I can assure you is not advertisement as I have no affiliation with that site. Sorry that you got that impression.  Hopefully you can be comforted with the fact that I would not post a link to a Christian site to raise money on an Atheist forum.  Not a good strategy from a marketing perspective.  I think you will find the video I posted is with in the context with the discussion and is free, and I encourage people to watch it so that they can open their mind. Its not enough to say you have an open mind, you have to put it into practice.  

Finally, do not assume you already been where I been.  You know little about me.

MOG, I really don't care what your response would have been. It's not my job to worry about what you think of me. My job is to make sure that people do not troll or spam the forum. Now that you've had your say about my post, you may get back to the point of my post which was clearly stated (and not for the first time). Either answer the questions and respond to the legitimate comments that came about because of your posts, or risk being banned from the forum. You've been given one warning already. This is not about me, this is about you respecting and adhering to the forum rules.

And don't continue to wrongly assume that people here, including me, haven't been "born again", evangelizing, bible believing paragons of christiandom, just because we don't know you personally. As I said, I have been in your spiritual shoes (unless, of course, you are a seventh day adventist).

Now, feel free to answer legitimate discourse with legitimate discourse, and stop being disingenuous and closed-minded. Additionally I followed the link you posted and found only "pay for play" lectures. Not free. Your link simply goes to the main sign in page for that site. From there you have to sign up, get an email confirmation, join officially, and search for whatever it is you meant to link to. But in the meantime, what you find is creationist drivel, for which you must pay to have the privilege to watch. There may be some free content, but you did not post a link  to that.

[Man-ofGod]

But in the meantime, what you find is creationist drivel, for which you must pay to have the privilege to watch. There may be some free content, but you did not post a link  to that.

I had it to where it automatically logs me in so I did not realize you were prompted to sign up for an account.  You still do not have to pay for the privlege to watch. In fact, when you click on the link, the first thing you see is..

Please register or login to view this media.
You can view all of our media files FOR FREE just by registering or logging in. We will absolutely not sell your contact information to anyone. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.
If you have any problems please click on the Contact Us page below.

[Man-ofGod]

MOG, is this video not mirrored elsewhere?  I mean, if it's really that convincing a message, and especially if it can answer for all my posts, then you'd think it'd be freely distributed and all over the web.

Yes, I have found one..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... pace&hl=en

[Squid]

Someone say evolutionary biology?  Sorry I'm late...

[curiosityandthecat]

Someone say evolutionary biology?  Sorry I'm late...

Was wondering when you'd show up.    Good to see you, Squid!

[Squid]

Someone say evolutionary biology?  Sorry I'm late...

Was wondering when you'd show up.    Good to see you, Squid!

Thanks.  Been busy with work (got a job working as a contractor for a project under the Army Research Lab) and working on my thesis (spent a few long days and nights running enzyme immunoassays)...

....sorry for thread de-rail...please continue...

[McQ]

But in the meantime, what you find is creationist drivel, for which you must pay to have the privilege to watch. There may be some free content, but you did not post a link  to that.

I had it to where it automatically logs me in so I did not realize you were prompted to sign up for an account.  You still do not have to pay for the privlege to watch. In fact, when you click on the link, the first thing you see is..

Please register or login to view this media.
You can view all of our media files FOR FREE just by registering or logging in. We will absolutely not sell your contact information to anyone. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.
If you have any problems please click on the Contact Us page below.

Ah, yes. I see. The Medium Quality ones are free as of April 20th. The High Quality are pay to view. That is my oversight, indeed. Of course, with the "Medium Quality" videos, you can't see the footnotes well enough half the time, to see where he is data mining.

Now, to the video of this guy  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith

You're really kidding, right? In less than the first three minutes of this hour and a half talk, he totally loses any credibility. He completely mis-characterizes every single scientific theory that he mentions. All he does is create straw men arguments against every arena of science that he deals with. He's a joke. He's also just plain wrong and/or lying about more things than I can respond to (and I'm only 14 minutes into the video)! Big Bang was not an explosion, yet he drones on and on about how "science" is wrong because the explosion couldn't have occurred based on what we currently observe.

Man, he is completely, and I mean completely without credibility. If he were to debate with any legitimate physicist, cosmologist,or astronomer, he'd be obliterated. Shoot, I'd nail his ass on most of what he says. All he does is cherry-pick either old data, or take data out of context, misquote astronomers and scientists.

The Pleiades, Orion, Globular Clusters, Big Bang, Einstein, Alan Guth, Nature, Scientific American....all topics or things he mentions and talks about, and he's wrong or lying about each one!
He agrees with science when it suits one of his arguments, and the dismisses it when it doesn't.

Love how he claims that "In a strange sort of way, science actually acknowledge a deity, sometimes, because here is a nebula which is termed the 'Eye of God', one of the NASA Hubble Telescope pictures."

Hmmmm....let's see how he distorts that. Does "science" (an undefined term that Veith uses constantly, as if it is a person or entity) call this the Eye of God? Nope. It is the Helix Nebula, and it is not a single image, but a composite made by both the HST and The Kitt Peak Observatory telescope. It was never called that idiotic appellation by NASA. Funny how Veith never mentions the name that NASA and all legitimate astronomers call it. The people that called it the Eye of God, were some media outlets, and the morons who passed it around the internet saying it was a divine sign from god. http://www.snopes.com/photos/space/eyeofgod.asp

Is he that stupid, or is he committing a lie of omission in addition to a lie of commission? Take your pick.

This is one example of the dozens of times Veith did the same thing in just the first few minutes of his presentation. By the way, the Earth is not a circle. It's not even a sphere. What a douche this guy is!

Oh, and you have yet to respond to the legitimate questions and discourse, MOG. And am I correct in guessing that you are a seventh day adventist?

[McQ]

Someone say evolutionary biology?  Sorry I'm late...

Was wondering when you'd show up.  

[Squid]

Welcome back, Squid. Someone did indeed say that.  

Thank ya, glad to be back again...for the tenth time...

[joeactor]

Now, to the video of this guy  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith

You're really kidding, right? In less than the first three minutes of this hour and a half talk, he totally loses any credibility. He completely mis-characterizes every single scientific theory that he mentions. All he does is create straw men arguments against every arena of science that he deals with. He's a joke. He's also just plain wrong and/or lying about more things than I can respond to (and I'm only 14 minutes into the video)! Big Bang was not an explosion, yet he drones on and on about how "science" is wrong because the explosion couldn't have occurred based on what we currently observe.

I gotta give you credit.  You watched a lot more than I could stomache.

I got to about 90 seconds.  By then he'd already mentioned "tell both sides" and invoked the bible.  Sheesh.

Remind me.

Why is this conversation still going on?

JoeActor

[McQ]

Now, to the video of this guy  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith

You're really kidding, right? In less than the first three minutes of this hour and a half talk, he totally loses any credibility. He completely mis-characterizes every single scientific theory that he mentions. All he does is create straw men arguments against every arena of science that he deals with. He's a joke. He's also just plain wrong and/or lying about more things than I can respond to (and I'm only 14 minutes into the video)! Big Bang was not an explosion, yet he drones on and on about how "science" is wrong because the explosion couldn't have occurred based on what we currently observe.

I gotta give you credit.  You watched a lot more than I could stomache.

I got to about 90 seconds.  By then he'd already mentioned "tell both sides" and invoked the bible.  Sheesh.

Remind me.

Why is this conversation still going on?

JoeActor

Got to about the 30 minute mark and realized that he really wasn't saying anything I hadn't heard before and that he was repeating the same strawmen, so I finally gave it up. You can only take so much outright dishonesty from people who should know better. Yeah, the "both sides" thing got me right away too.

I'm just going to bow out of this thread. I've got to go to a high school concert and take a nap....
...I mean....watch my son.  

[Man-ofGod]

Ah, yes. I see. The Medium Quality ones are free as of April 20th. The High Quality are pay to view. That is my oversight, indeed. Of course, with the "Medium Quality" videos, you can't see the footnotes well enough half the time, to see where he is data mining.

Thank you for admitting your mistake.

Now, to the video of this guy  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith

You're really kidding, right? In less than the first three minutes of this hour and a half talk, he totally loses any credibility. He completely mis-characterizes every single scientific theory that he mentions. All he does is create straw men arguments against every arena of science that he deals with. He's a joke. He's also just plain wrong and/or lying about more things than I can respond to (and I'm only 14 minutes into the video)! Big Bang was not an explosion, yet he drones on and on about how "science" is wrong because the explosion couldn't have occurred based on what we currently observe

I am aware of what the recent dogma is concerning what "experts" say the  bigbang is now. However, this was not always so:

big bang theory - big-bang theory: (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

big bang theory - A model for the evolution of the universe that holds that all matter and energy in the universe were concentrated in one point, which suddenly exploded. Subsequently, matter condensed to form atoms, elements, and eventually galaxies and stars.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossB.html

The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... heory.html

Princeton, Encarta seem to assume that a big explosion occurred.  I seem to remember thats how they taught it in school.  So who are you to point fingers?

Man, he is completely, and I mean completely without credibility. If he were to debate with any legitimate physicist, cosmologist,or astronomer, he'd be obliterated. Shoot, I'd nail his ass on most of what he says. All he does is cherry-pick either old data, or take data out of context, misquote astronomers and scientists.

The Pleiades, Orion, Globular Clusters, Big Bang, Einstein, Alan Guth, Nature, Scientific American....all topics or things he mentions and talks about, and he's wrong or lying about each one!
He agrees with science when it suits one of his arguments, and the dismisses it when it doesn't.

Love how he claims that "In a strange sort of way, science actually acknowledge a deity, sometimes, because here is a nebula which is termed the 'Eye of God', one of the NASA Hubble Telescope pictures."

Hmmmm....let's see how he distorts that. Does "science" (an undefined term that Veith uses constantly, as if it is a person or entity) call this the Eye of God? Nope. It is the Helix Nebula, and it is not a single image, but a composite made by both the HST and The Kitt Peak Observatory telescope. It was never called that idiotic appellation by NASA. Funny how Veith never mentions the name that NASA and all legitimate astronomers call it. The people that called it the Eye of God, were some media outlets, and the morons who passed it around the internet saying it was a divine sign from god. http://www.snopes.com/photos/space/eyeofgod.asp

This is a petty argument. At the time of this video, this was a common nickname for the Helix Nebula. He just made an interesting observation concerning that nickname.  It really has little to do with the actual video.

Is he that stupid, or is he committing a lie of omission in addition to a lie of commission? Take your pick.

Again, a petty and ignorant comment.

This is one example of the dozens of times Veith did the same thing in just the first few minutes of his presentation. By the way, the Earth is not a circle. It's not even a sphere. What a douche this guy is!

First of all, he never stated that the world was   a "circle."  He pointed to scripture that references the word.  If you want to get technical, the world is closer to an  Oblate Spheroid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Shape).  Did you want to give me the hebrew word for Oblate Spheroid by any chance?  

Oh, and you have yet to respond to the legitimate questions and discourse, MOG. And am I correct in guessing that you are a seventh day adventist?

You want me to answer questions you feel are important, but I do not see you forcing people to answer mine. Simple questions that Science should be able to answer at this point in time.

When did the scientific community unanimously agree that evolution should go from hypothesis to theory.  In fact, when was it ever a hypothesis?

I have a similar question for the Big Bang Theory.  When did it move from hypothesis (belief) to theory?  Answer that then I can answer the questions you would like me to answer.

Finally, your last question has no relevance to the thread and is another example of a petty question that would probably result in more petty comments. Therefore, I refuse to answer it.

[Tanker]

When did the scientific community unanimously agree that evolution should go from hypothesis to theory. In fact, when was it ever a hypothesis?

I have a similar question for the Big Bang Theory. When did it move from hypothesis (belief) to theory? Answer that then I can answer the questions you would like me to answer.

When did the scientific comunity unanimously agree that gravity should go from hypothesis to therory? In fact when was it ever a hypotoesis?

Sorry, I'm being a bit faciesious. But not having a clear understanding of why and how hypothesis and therory are used does not make a fact any less of a fact.

[Man-ofGod]

When did the scientific community unanimously agree that evolution should go from hypothesis to theory. In fact, when was it ever a hypothesis?

I have a similar question for the Big Bang Theory. When did it move from hypothesis (belief) to theory? Answer that then I can answer the questions you would like me to answer.

When did the scientific comunity unanimously agree that gravity should go from hypothesis to therory? In fact when was it ever a hypotoesis?

Sorry, I'm being a bit faciesious. But not having a clear understanding of why and how hypothesis and therory are used does not make a fact any less of a fact.

In science it does.

The Law of Gravitation passes the scientific method hands down.

[McQ]

I am aware of what the recent dogma is concerning what "experts" say the  bigbang is now. However, this was not always so:

big bang theory - big-bang theory: (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

big bang theory - A model for the evolution of the universe that holds that all matter and energy in the universe were concentrated in one point, which suddenly exploded. Subsequently, matter condensed to form atoms, elements, and eventually galaxies and stars.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossB.html

The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... heory.html

Princeton, Encarta seem to assume that a big explosion occurred.  I seem to remember thats how they taught it in school.  So who are you to point fingers?

Good question. In this case, I'm the guy who's right and you're making this really easy. Every definition you supplied is wrong. It's that simple. Astronomers and Cosmologists don't even wallow in the definition of Big Bang as an explosion. It, like so many other analogies used to describe complex things, is a faulty analogy.

It's funny you should try to use Princeton in your argument. You should have spent a few more minutes on your Google search, as the link you supplied takes you to a WordNet search of Princeton's English Lexicon Site, not the correct site for Princeton Cosmology.

I happen to subscribe to the Princeton Cosmology Journal Club, and followed the research of many of the ongoing and former studies, including the WMAP Five Year Project and its data. You can view the non-research version of it here, at the correct site. http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Or here, where you get the correct definition of Big Bang Cosmology: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

As for the second link, it takes you to an online biology glossary published by the Estrella Mountain Community College. Don't know that college, and it might be good, but their online biology glossary gives an incorrect definition of Big Bang. Again, it's that simple.

Same deal for your last link, MOG. Won't even bother repeating it.

This is a petty argument. At the time of this video, this was a common nickname for the Helix Nebula. He just made an interesting observation concerning that nickname.  It really has little to do with the actual video.

Really? Why does he bring it up? And no, it was not a common nickname. The common nickname has always been the Helix Nebula. Its actual designation is NGC 7293.

I have a similar question for the Big Bang Theory.  When did it move from hypothesis (belief) to theory?  Answer that then I can answer the questions you would like me to answer.

Finally, your last question has no relevance to the thread and is another example of a petty question that would probably result in more petty comments. Therefore, I refuse to answer it.

The rest of your post is as pointless as your initial posts and shows your lack of veracity. You don't even know what a theory is or does, or you would not have posed those questions. And you do not dictate that I answer your questions before you answer mine, MOG. Additionally, I didn't ask you to answer mine from the start, but other people who posted long well though-out messages to you.

Waste no more time with this. I know I won't. But if you continue to troll, you're going to be banned.

If anyone else would like to pick this up and explain basic science, please do so.

Edit to add: I was in a huge hurry typing this post and had to leave it to go pick up my son. I ended it hastily, so to clarify one thing...

I do not debate with creationists for the exact reasons demonstrated by MOG. I broke the rule in this thread to keep it on track, but it is pointless to try to do so. It is obvious that for one thing, MOG has no idea what the hell he's talking about, and that he also has no intention of trying to learn why he is wrong.
Again, the main reason I no longer engage in discussion or debate with creationists about either cosmic origins or evolution.