Instructables

oxymorons + creation/evolution debate

I was trying to think up oxy morons, and wondered if any one had any good ones. Just post as many as you can think of. here's mine: jumbo shrimp.

Picture of oxymorons + creation/evolution debate
kelseymh5 years ago
Intelligent design
Creation Science.
? Fail
Hmm?
ReCreate is one of those people who have fallen victim to the Creation science scam.
Here we go again...
If you want.

I'll let you go first - provide non-biblical evidence for the creation myth that does not contain the phrases "it is obvious" or "if you have faith".
Well...I heard in many places, News, Even a dedicated TV show that they found a massive, wooden boat some place in the mountains, Or at least parts of it, And ancient wood in nearby places, that the boat was hollow with many chambers and rooms. What excuse are you going to make up for that?
It was an interview with about 3 diffirent people who visited it at 3 diffirent times. They did a lie detector test on them, and the results where that they did see a boat and it was massive, Huge that they think it was noah's ark.
I remember that - it was debunked in the Fortean Times over a decade ago.

It wasn't in the right mountain range, it wasn't at the top, it wasn't anywhere near the size given in the bible.

Proper examination by trained archaeologists showed it to be a natural formation, not a human construction at all.
Kiteman Kiteman4 years ago
(Passing a lie detector test does not mean you are telling the truth, just that you believe you are telling the truth, or that you are calmer than most people.)
so your saying that an 80+ year old man was lying and that he fooled the lie detector test? He was not asked"Was that noah's ark?" He was asked things like "Did you see a massive object blah blah and such..."
No, I am saying that he belioeved he was telling the truth. Age has nothing to do with it. So, he saw a massive object. Just because an object is large, wooden and up a hill does not mean it is Noah's ark. It means it is large, wooden and up a hill. What other evidence was there to say that the object that they found was "the" Ark, given that it was not in the location described by the Bible, nor was it of the dimensions given in the Bible?
So, he saw a massive object. Just because an object is large, wooden and up a hill ....

Not to mention it Had Rooms, Chambers and walls and such.
That it was like broken in half, one half was somewhere, and the other half fell down the mountain in an avalanche or another natural disaster.
Thats why they found shards of ancient wood along the trail where it would have fallen.
given that it was not in the location described by the Bible
Don't you think that over 2000+ years an object would move from its original location?
nor was it of the dimensions given in the Bible?
If i have not mistaken...I think it was the Dimensions given in the Bible.
jedi pen-gui-n (author)  ReCreate4 years ago
reCreate no use He's going to hold to his ideas as I would Mine. We shall see Who is right. On the other side.
I just want to see what he will think up to make an excuse about it, yet again. What do you mean on the other side?
Make an excuse about it? You mean refute your ideals? He's not making excuses, he's using logic, reason, and science to debunk them, not "making excuses about" them.
In other words, making excuses that seem and appear to make sense, but are false.
I am not making excuses because I have nothing to excuse.

Evolution is not a faux pas, it is an examinable fact.
It is supported by hundreds of thousands of individual pieces of evidence, from almost every branch of science.
It is not a lie.
It is not false.
It is not self-contradictory.

Why don't you have the guts to flat-out call me a liar?

Why? Because you know that I am not.

Because you know, deep down, that everything I have said is true.

Why not take the truly brave step and admit it?
Because you know, deep down, that everything I have said is true.
That is the most pathetically false set of words i have ever read.
Wow, you're getting pretty defensive, 'eh? Afraid your myths might get shattered under the scrutiny of... reality?
Say whatever you want, you will not convince me, i will not convince you, We are getting nowhere.
You could convince me, if you provided actual evidence for the existence of God that hasn't been debunked. If you can't be convinced, that's your own closed-mindedness.
Well there is not much solid physical evidence on it, neither is there much on the fact that air exists, but it does, you can prove that air exists by blowing it on your hand and felling it, and that is mostly the only way to prove that air exists without any fancy tools or whatever. The same goes for the fact that god exists, or any of this is real, it is, but there is not too many ways of proving it, without a miracle.
here it is again, but much easier to readWell there is not much solid physical evidence on it, neither is there much on the fact that air exists, but it does, you can prove that air exists by blowing it on your hand and felling it, and that is mostly the only way to prove that air exists without any fancy tools or whatever.The same goes for the fact that god exists, or any of this is real, it is, but there is not too many ways of proving it, without a miracle.
then again it is not too easy to read...oh well :P
It's easy to prove air exists. It can condense into a liquid.

Duhh..........
its not easy to do that

Duhh................
For people with the right equipment it is. And if you want even more reasons, you can compress air, you can blow other objects with it, you can observe it slowing down skydivers with parachutes, it inflates balloons, etc.

Duhh............
Aha, But you need to go through a lot of hasstle to do that, and you need equipment, defeats the whole purpose of my point.
duhhhhh............................................................
So you didn't even bother to read the rest of my comment?Duhh........ I guess I'll have to repeat it for you:

"And if you want even more reasons, you can compress air, you can blow other objects with it, you can observe it slowing down skydivers with parachutes, it inflates balloons, etc."
You still need to get something, in this case, An air compressor, A parachute, and an airplane.
DUHHHHHHH........................................................................
You forgot the balloon, which is oh soooo hard to find. You could also prove it exists by dropping a piece of paper and watching it glide to the ground,

Oh no, I can't find a piece of paper except in the most advanced laboratories!
You need to go through hassle to get paper, i have no paper anywhere.
Duh...
OK, smarty pants, how do you explain flatulence without air? Wait, let me guess, you're going to say that not everyone has a butt?
You would need to...Do it, Not always easy...
duh
That's a pretty dumb excuse, and it only means that you need to get more fiber into your diet.
...?
So you don't even know what fiber is?

"Dietary fiber, sometimes called roughage, is the indigestible portion of plant foods that pushes food through the digestive system, absorbing water and easing defecation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber

Eating foods high in fiber also contributes to flatulence. Most people pass gas about 14 times a day, most of it while you are sleeping. If your number is much lower than this, you need to eat more fiber.
all-bran-front-400-619.jpg
I know what fiber is, what i don't know is how it is relevant to any of this discussion.
Just look at your previous comments. I said flatulence was an easy way to prove air exists, and you said "You would need to...Do it, Not always easy...". Then I was saying that if it's not easy, you need to eat more fiber.
Oh i get it now, Getting more fiber is not easy.and can take some time, a whole day at most.
I understand how an inattentive person could get the "Getting more fiber is not easy" part out of that, but the "It can take a whole a whole day" part reaches a whole new level of ignorance. Did you even read what I said?
I assume that means you give up. So do you understand that it is extremely easy to prove air exists?
See, we can scientifically observe air. Can I touch, feel, or interact with god?
My point was that there is only one way to prove air is there, by blowing it and felling it. In other words, a miracle would be needed to prove that he exists, and the "Fancy tools" represents the few pieces of proof left on the earth.
You can condense air into a liquid.
There are multiple ways of proving air exists. However, it doesn't matter. We're not talking about proving air exists, we are talking about proving the Judeo-christian god exists.
Ok, but you still missed my point.
No, you missed ours.

You are correct, a miracle would be a piece of evidence to show that a supernatural being exists.

Trrouble is, all the miracles that have accured thus far in the history of Judaeism and Christianity have fallen into one of three categories:

1. Happened at some point in the past, and left no verifiable evidence.
2. Have been examined by independent scientists and found to have a natural explanation
3. Access to the miracle has been denied by religious authorities.

The logical conclusions are:

  • No Miracles occured in the past.
  • No miracles are occuring now
  • The religious authorities know that scientific examination will show that supposed miracles have a natural, even fraudulent, basis, and are doing their best to hide the fact.
Ok, say for example, when Lazarus was raised from the dead, do you say it is a lie? Or do you say that he would just wake up coincidentally?
Did your read his comment?

...Trouble is, all the miracles that have occurred thus far in the history of Judaism and Christianity have fallen into one of three categories:

1. Happened at some point in the past, and left no verifiable evidence....
I believe your particular "lazarus" example falls right into that category.
How do we even have proof that he was dead, or rose from it?
You don't fell air, you fell timber, or fell over.
False? Show me - quote a falsehood from me.

Prove you are correct - show us the reliable evidence for creationism.

You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath while you do that - purple just isn't my colour.
Whats the point? Anything i tell you and you think up some clever excuse to deny it, yet again.
Translation: "I can't find one".
?
He means you can't find a falsehood. I am not giving excuses, I am stating verifiable facts.
If i said something i would sound like a broken record, lets just stay on one comment chain, not two.
You would sound like a broken record because you would probably say something is "proof" even though it has been debunked a long time ago. Same thing you've been doing this whole time.
No.
Yes.
No.
obamahandforeheadap.jpg
I said Yes. Also this image would have been better...Fail you...again...
facepalm.jpg
I heard you. But you're wrong. Very wrong, in fact. So wrong, that any image that accompanies this post will not duly express how much failure you have managed to generate with your simple acts of attempted (and failed) rhetoric. So here's a cat. Enjoy. Now go play somewhere else. The big boys have things to do.
domestic-cat.jpg
A cat? Fail.
Unable to read? Fail.
I did read, and your words meant little.
Apparently you didn't read. Or you didn't understand what I said. Either way.
Both of you just look stupid. Unable to let the other have the last word.
Then it's a good thing I don't care about what other people think, otherwise I'd take offense to that. :-)
jedi pen-gui-n (author)  ReCreate4 years ago
Of death.
Death? When we die?
Good grief, now it's the immortal soul shtick.

Trying to scare me into believing because, if I don't, something bad will happen to something that does not exist is not going to work.

"Believe, or we'll shoot the pink unicorn after you die!"

Le gasp, Kiteman swore.... Well, kinda....
Huh?
Shtick....
"Shtick" derives from Yiddish, and means "comic theme" or "gimmick."
Thanks for explaining! I initially thought it was the pseudo-swear of the S-word, kinda similar to how the word 'Fudge' is the pseudo-swear of the F-word.

I stand corrected =)
No worries! English (both American and British) is full of words borrowed, and usually mispronounced, from other language. Yiddish is a surprisingly common source.
To tell you the truth, I don't even know what Yiddish is =P Yeah, I know, I'm not too bright.... Care to explain? Thanks in advance!
I would never say that. As you've pointed out, English is your fourth language! Why should you know stuff like this.

However, as you know, Google Is Your Friend :-) Or in this case, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish
True, true.... I just feel somewhat inferior when I'm told something I've never even heard of =P

Thanks for the link, I guess =P I just got back from Singapore when I posted the comment above and I was too lazy and tired to Google or Wikipedia it by myself =P
I think he's maybe confused and under the impression that it's a psuedo-swear word (like fudge)?
Yeah, Lol, stupid me. I thought 'Shtick' is to the S-word as fudge is to the F-word,
=P
And I said 'kinda', remember?
Was i talking to you?
If you're going to keep adding comments after mine, yes you are.
Well...I was talking to that other guy...
jedi pen-gui-n (author)  ReCreate4 years ago
re create:yes kiteman: you're going to hold to your ideas as I would Mine Its no use
You mean it is pointless...
jedi pen-gui-n (author)  ReCreate4 years ago
well, yeah
exactly
Not to mention it Had Rooms, Chambers and walls and such.
That it was like broken in half, one half was somewhere, and the other half fell down the mountain in an avalanche or another natural disaster.

Why are you selectively quoting the article I sent you? The one that included a debunk of Wyatt's Ark claims?

Don't you think that over 2000+ years an object would move from its original location?

What, to a different mountain?

If i have not mistaken...I think it was the Dimensions given in the Bible.

You are mistaken - Wyatt joined up patterns in lava and claimed they were broken sections of a ship. There were no wood samples found at the site. Wyatt made up loads of stuff - he claimed that carved rocks were Noah's anchor stones, even though the farmers who carved them were still alive!

He claimed to have detected buried nails with a metal detector, even though the native rock contains magnetite.

His own team admitted that the site was just a geological formation, not a boat at all!

All of that was in the same article, yet all you seem to have seen are the parts that were debunked in the same article!
That's not the same story.
I was not quoting anything.

What, to a different mountain?

Maybe? Who knows.
Read the link I gave to Wyatt's obituary. Then re-read your post Jun 18, 2009. 9:43 AM (above). You quoted it. So what story do you think you are talking about? Wyatt is the only person who claims to have found, excavated and measured the actual Ark. He's the only one who has been on TV and made documentaries about it. If you know of somebody else who claims to have found the Ark, then you should be able to provide some sort of link to the story - a web address, a book title, a TV company. As for the mountain - if you can accept the possibility that the Bible got it wrong regarding which mountain the Ark rested on, why can't you accept that other, much more easily checked parts can be wrong?
I am getting tired of you, no matter how far we go we are going nowhere. This is pointless.
Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

PDF Downloads
As a Pro member, you will gain access to download any Instructable in the PDF format. You also have the ability to customize your PDF download.

Upgrade to Pro today!