PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 4 5 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 8:36 PM on March 3, 2009 :
decay rates have been independently verified through astronomical means to several hundred million years.


How do you independantly verify contradictory age estimates? Some of the highest rocks in the grand Canyon from the Uinkaret Plateau were dated at approx. 1,3 billion years using the rubidium strontium method; lead dating put them at 2,6 billion years and potassium argon at anything from 10 000 to 117 million years. If the rubidium and lead methods are correct, these high rocks would be older than those near the canyon's base.


More copy pasta from a creationist source like AiG is it?

Do you really wonder about the question you are positing Lester, or are you only towing the party line? Do you understand the processes involved in dating the stratum and so then you see that there is a discrepancy, or do you believe that there is a discrepancy because that is the time honored creationist way; to swallow an regurgitate delusional creationist bollocks?


From the "Journal of Geophysical Research" - it was reported that the lava from an 1800-1801 eruption  of the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii has been radiometrically dated using various minerals and methods from which ten different dates were derived, ranging from 140 million to 2,96 billion years.

Why would we trust these methods?


OK. Fair enough question. These methods are founded on an earnest desire or agenda if you like, to ferret out what is true about nature. Her secrets and mysteries lay cryptically hidden and obscured from full view. She tempts and tauts (not consciously of course), like an irresistible temptress beckoning for bright young minds to come along and unravel her secrets.

The scientific method is what you are presently challenging no less, and your real question had you been willing to ask it outright, is why should we trust the scientific method. No?  The methods of dating geological stratum is but only a subset of the scientific method is it not?

The answer to your rather ominous qualm. Is no different than dozens of other similar qualms that imply that the scientific method may somehow be faulty and or trustworthy. The answer to your question about the radiometric methods is the same for any legitimate procedure in science. The scientific method works.

Why should we trust the scientific method then? Let's think about the machine you are using to peruse the internet. An engineering marvel of countless billions (or is it trillions now)  of microscopic switches they toil away calculating the many millions of individual calculations that are needed, to produce every masterful calculation in the software, coded to do every thing from draw the full stop on the end of this sentence to search for viruses in your email.

The shit that is going on with one lowly computing machine is just mind boggling. Unbelievable doesn't even begin to describe what we have achieved here, short of supernatural or miraculous. So looking at this, we must appreciate then the enthusiasm to create something or at least to know and understand how it could be done.

The engineers who create these marvels of modern technology, don't get the job done with guesswork or trial and error. They need to understand fundamental laws of nature and the man made part is how to obey these laws. Lets look at a simple example. The gutters on a house are there to catch the rain which runs off the roof. The people who design the gutters need to know a thing or two about rain (and house building) to get the job done.

The design of the gutters are a reflection of natural facts. Gutters must be made to accommodate the physical properties of rain, a liquid which falls as droplets. If the rain were not droplets of liquid, but semi solid balls which bounce like rubber, then gutter design would have to be different. You might not use gutters as such, but perhaps you would have some kind of netting or whatever. The design of anything relies on our scientific understanding that in turn relies on the scientific method.

I know house gutters are not very scientific, and you don't need to do much science in oder to design them, but they do rely on facts about nature of which our science must agree with. Rain is a liquid. Liquids run down hill. Science only tells us these things, because nature tells us these things. You can argue with scientists but you cant argue with the natural properties of things. Now, gutters are like any other technology, low tech or high, it is designed with a reliance on nature and natural properties of the universe.

The more high tech we go the more we rely on detailed scientific understandings of nature. You might be able trial and error your way to a halfway decent gutter design, but you won't be able for instance, to make a TV that way.

The operative words in reality, are the 'know-how' and the real conquest, to lay the rules of nature open to examination is the objective. In the heart of every scientist is a Julius Sumner Miller, asking Why is it so?  
And what a wonderful question that is ladies and gentlemen, boy and girls. Why is it so?

Why couldn't a scientist just make stuff up? Hmmm? Why not pretend the gas escaping from a constricted space gets hot? Suppose my whim is to prove some kind of free energy machine and the operation of the machine depends on liquid remaining warm or becoming warmer after escaping from a constricted space.

Well I guess that the straight answer would be, that it isn't a scientists job to make stuff up. If that were the case Hollywood  would be the mecca of science. That's a danger far too real in America I'm sad to say. And while we're on the big H. it should be noted how easy that a conspiracy is portrayed as being able to be pulled off. In a complex world full of individual minds "The Truman Show" would fail in week one.

Being a deliberate and noticeable liar, is a big deal in science. Oh how I wish the same were true in these forums. Being found to be perverting honest rational inquiry is not taken as an innocent folly and forgiven lightly or even rewarded as creationists seem to suggest. If you want a career in making up fictional scenarios that defy the laws of nature, then you become a science fiction writer (or a career creationist), wherein your scenarios are expected to be entertaining and yet still believable enough to engross the viewer / reader.

In science however, there is  this inevitable and unavoidable link to reality. The demonstrations by Sumner Miller may be wacky and rather chaotic to the discerning senses of a viewer with taste and it is old stuff, but Sumner Miller was inevitably right. He was as honest as the day and his science was on display for all the world to disprove. There was probably never a minuscule complaint from the public, that he was teaching anything other than undeniable fact. Why? because he demonstrated the undeniable facts. The undeniable fact had 'smack you in the face and shut you the hell up' value, not only to any would be creationists in the flanks, but even a genuine scientist who believed for some obscure hypothetical reason, that the gas should get hot when escaping from a constricted space.

Now here's the rub. The laws of physics don't care if you're Stephen Hawking, George Bush or Bob Dylan. They just don't give a damn what you think. What you can pretend is fact, is going to be worth squat in reality. Nevertheless in real science there are eager, hungry, ambitious scientists, are waiting to find a new idea about nature, and devour any wayward nonsense, that lies about how the laws of nature and the universe work. It's called 'peer review' and it's like a miniature lazes fare economic system. There are limited research funds and publishing opportunities. Scientists compete with other scientists by pointing out the discrepancies in conjectural theory, published in peer reviewed journals.

The example of decay rates in radiometric dating, is as good an example as any. The ranges of effective dating for each technique are not decided on by scientists. The the ranges are natural functions of the physics. You use a magnifying glass to look at the fine details on a stamp, whereas you use a microscope to look at the flagella on a protozoa. What's the problem? Somebody decides to use the wrong technique, and comes to unreliable/bad conclusions, then they get slapped via peer review for sloppy work and that should embarrass them and hurt their career.

Let's put that another way: The common enterprise of science has and is trained to have particular bullshit filters. What works as realistic knowledge about the real world, is allowed to pass as plausible. Well actually it's up to the individual, but in general agreement is met not by consensus alone, but consensus of agreement with nature. In that way, there is popular consensus, but that can never be a matter of fashion or  
whimsical belief, because the subject matter is ruthlessly analyzed for it's accord with empirical results.

Empirical results in turn can not be faked. Not in any way that holds water in the long term. Anybody who wanted to test Julius and repeat one of his experiments could and would be welcome to. Perhaps in science classes we should have Juius Sumner Miller style science classes featuring  creation science experiments, as apposed to a narrative of  contrived bullshit that creationists want to replace real science with.

What I am saying I suppose, is that science works. And that means the peer review process that provides a motive to keep the science real and accountable to factual inquiry, seems to work well. Now. Apart from the low tech gutter and the modern example I gave for your unbelievably complex computer and all digital electronic computing devises, the honesty is not isolated.

The same peer review process is used in all, of science and the same honesty is expected. The vetting system is not just for Julius and his physics experiments . No!! The laws of nature can be exhibited at large and for smaller audiences of experts in some very particular physics and thought experiments. However they are convinced, they must try as much as possible to reflect nature and reality accurately.  

If science in general didn't shoot for the truth about how this universe works, then it would soon be over thrown by some thing that did. That is also true on the individual level. Any scientist who forwards an idea, which is just factually wrong, finds that idea is rejected. If they willfully commit fraud, they risk their career. So how can you personally know that those dating methods are sound? Look around you at the modern world and notice how embedded science is in its technology. One scientific principal is no different than any other in how it is discovered and validated. If it were, it would lead to discrepancies and would be ferreted out.

Does it occur to you that in your vendetta against evolution, you incriminate the whole scientific method, accuse science of a willfully conspiracy and scientists of being dishonest? How do you square up those implications?


(Edited by Skepticus 3/6/2009 at 12:03 PM).


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 06:42 AM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry Skepticus, you've said too much here for me to answer in a second -will be back soon as I can


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:04 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:04 AM on March 7, 2009 :
Sorry Skepticus, you've said too much here for me to answer in a second -will be back soon as I can



No probs Lester. But please do get back. I am very curious about what you have to say. I have read some of your other stuff and I am convinced you have a genuine side. You need to think about it, and it takes however long it takes. Talk to you soon my friend.


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 12:27 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, Lester10. Something shorter for you:

You said that either life was created or it created itself. You were asked to back this claim up. You're still silent about it.

You asked for Evidence that showed that abiogenesis was remotely possible. It was shown to you. You're still silent about it.

You said that evolutionists accept abiogenesis as the only possibility. It has been pointed out to you that that's not true. You're still silent about it.

You implied that chirality was somehow problematic for the abiogenesis hypothesis. You were asked to show how. You're still silent about it.

You claimed once and again that we have faith in Evolution. You were asked to back this claim up. You're still silent about it.

You said that "fossils frequently do not appear in the order which evolution expects". You were asked to show examples of that. You're still silent about it.

You spoke of censorship and suppression of information. You were asked for examples. You're still silent about it.

Let's leave it there for now.

Skepticus
No probs Lester. But please do get back. I am very curious about what you have to say. I have read some of your other stuff and I am convinced you have a genuine side. You need to think about it, and it takes however long it takes. Talk to you soon my friend.
Who are you, and what have you done with Skepticus? ¬_¬



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:37 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 03:37 AM on March 7, 2009 :
Skepticus
No probs Lester. But please do get back. I am very curious about what you have to say. I have read some of your other stuff and I am convinced you have a genuine side. You need to think about it, and it takes however long it takes. Talk to you soon my friend.
Who are you, and what have you done with Skepticus? ¬_¬[/color]


Skepticus = = YUM




-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 3:12 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Skepticus - you bring up a vital point in the way science is, or should be, conducted - with honesty and integrity.

I recently read an autobiography by nobel prize winning physicist, Richard Feynman - 'The Adventures of a Curious Character'.  It's a wonderful book, and I highly recommend it.  One thing that you come away with after reading the book was, first and foremost, Feynman's love for science.  But he was a stickler for integrity and honesty, which were the hallmarks of his character.  And he made it quite clear that honesty and integrity was one of the supporting pillars upon which science rests.  Without those qualities it would be like... well, like Creationism.
   
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:58 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester doesn't need my help but I like chiming in anyway.

wisp  You said that either life was created or it created itself. You were asked to back this claim up.

Rhetorical question. I believe Lester's point is that there are logically only two options. "Life was created..." means intentional design. "Life created itself..." means unintentional development.

wisp  You asked for Evidence that showed that abiogenesis was remotely possible. It was shown to you.

I guess I missed that one. Are you talking about the mathematical probabilities? Or the physical and chemical obstacles?  

wisp  You said that evolutionists accept abiogenesis as the only possibility. It has been pointed out to you that that's not true.

Sorry. I missed that one too. What other possibility do evolutionists accept?

wisp  You implied that chirality was somehow problematic for the abiogenesis hypothesis. You were asked to show how.

Over my head. Left handed what?

wisp  You claimed once and again that we have faith in Evolution. You were asked to back this claim up.

It seems self evident when a person has faith in something. Their actions and attitude reflect their belief. You have faith in your own observation. You also have faith in scientific publications and journals. And with good reason. Faith is a requirement for believing in anything even if the evidence is overwhelming.

skepticus  If science in general didn't shoot for the truth about how this universe works, then it would soon be over thrown by some thing that did. That is also true on the individual level. Any scientist who forwards an idea, which is just factually wrong, finds that idea is rejected. If they willfully commit fraud, they risk their career. So how can you personally know that those dating methods are sound? Look around you at the modern world and notice how embedded science is in its technology. One scientific principal is no different than any other in how it is discovered and validated. If it were, it would lead to discrepancies and would be ferreted out.

I agree with this , skepticus, except for the fact that it often takes more than a lifetime for these discrepancies to be ferreted out. And the damage bad science can do to life and property is incalculable. Not to start another debate, but I'll give you three examples.
1. DDT - bad science led to the banning of this safe and effective pesticide because of political pressure by environmentalists. Perhaps millions of people have died from mosquito bourn illness because of fear that some eagles eggs might not hatch. Granted DDT was way way overused because of its safety and cost effectiveness, but the public overreaction has been lethal.

2. Ozone depletion- blaming the hole in the ozone layer on CFC's has cost billions to change to eco-friendly propellants and refrigerants. The anecdotal evidence alone that this is pure hype and a huge political over-reaction to bad science is stunning. But when you add to this real facts, such as the weight and volatility of these chemicals, it is tragic.

3. Global warming - This bad science alone could destroy the economic development of a third world country and cripple a developed nation with its over reaction to propaganda hype. The only people interested in this fraud are political power grabbers, brain washed grade school kids, and scientists vying for billions in grant money.

skepticus  Does it occur to you that in your vendetta against evolution, you incriminate the whole scientific method, accuse science of a willfully conspiracy and scientists of being dishonest? How do you square up those implications?

This is a false accusation. The "vendetta" as you put it is against the propagation of speculations as facts. The scientific method is merely a tool for communication. It is not some kind of secular scripture. It is actually useful for developing a budget, a business plan, an idea for a book, an invention or any other thing in which orderly communication of a thought of idea is desirable. As for willful conspiracy, please refer to the above 3 examples. People have always conspired to gain power, recognition and wealth. Why should we think a scientist is any different than any other class of people? Unfortunately scientists and politicians can do more harm than the average selfish greedy individual.  

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 4:31 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Lester doesn't need my help but I like chiming in anyway.
It was actually about Lester10. It's a matter of attitude. I didn't even imply (in my last post) that he was wrong.

I believe Lester's point is that there are logically only two options. "Life was created..." means intentional design. "Life created itself..." means unintentional development.
You believe? I'd like to know what he meant, from himself.

You asked for Evidence that showed that abiogenesis was remotely possible. It was shown to you.
I guess I missed that one. Are you talking about the mathematical probabilities? Or the physical and chemical obstacles?
I don't quite get you. I showed him a link to an experiment about abiogenesis. They already got self-replicating chemicals. Not by design, mind you!

You said that evolutionists accept abiogenesis as the only possibility. It has been pointed out to you that that's not true.
Sorry. I missed that one too. What other possibility do evolutionists accept?
Aliens starting life on Earth, for instance. Or a time-traveler. Or living seeds from outer space. Or God.

Do you want me to think of more than those? I'm somewhat tired tonight.

It seems self evident when a person has faith in something.
Not according to my definition of faith. If you knew some of my beliefs, you couldn't tell if i do because of faith or because of understanding.
Their actions and attitude reflect their belief. You have faith in your own observation.
You can't have faith in observations. What would that mean?
You also have faith in scientific publications and journals.
I don't. I already know how it works.
Faith is a requirement for believing in anything even if the evidence is overwhelming.
Then the word has no possible meaning. It would be related to something (belief), but it would mean nothing.

I can invent the term... 'X'. And i will relate it to... Mmm... Hearing.

So, X is a requirement for hearing anything, even if you have all that it takes to hear.
You need X to hear music.

It's self-evident that you have X, when you're capable of hearing music. Head-banging reflects that you have X.

I don't mean to mock you, but do you see my point?

Let us limit the application of 'faith' to 'believing without an understanding or an informed knowledge'.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:13 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp  Aliens starting life on Earth, for instance. Or a time-traveler. Or living seeds from outer space. Or God.

All of these causes would require a beginning. Who or what made the aliens, etc.

timbrx  Faith is a requirement for believing in anything even if the evidence is overwhelming.

wisp  Then the word has no possible meaning. It would be related to something (belief), but it would mean nothing.

I can invent the term... 'X'. And i will relate it to... Mmm... Hearing.

So, X is a requirement for hearing anything, even if you have all that it takes to hear.
You need X to hear music.

It's self-evident that you have X, when you're capable of hearing music. Head-banging reflects that you have X.

I don't mean to mock you, but do you see my point?

Let us limit the application of 'faith' to 'believing without an understanding or an informed knowledge'.


Sorry, wisp. Faith does not rely on lack of knowledge to be faith. Perhaps an incomplete knowledge, but no knowledge is not a prerequisite. For example, take your hypothetical "x". You observe it's effect on the environment. There is evidence. But you have faith in your hypothesis that you need X to hear because it fits into your understanding of hearing. But what if your understanding is incomplete? What if hearing is not really hearing at all? What if the perception of sound is a shared hallucination? It doesn't matter because you have faith in your ability to hear head-banging music when you plug in your favorite CD.
You have faith in your wife (I presume) because of the evidence.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 7:12 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All of these causes would require a beginning. Who or what made the aliens,
etc.


Who or what made God?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:30 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 3:31 PM on March 6, 2009 :

I guess I missed that one. Are you talking about the mathematical probabilities? Or the physical and chemical obstacles?  


You called it "interesting chemistry".  Would you like to see it again?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:57 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All of these causes would require a beginning. Who or what made the aliens, etc.
Not the time traveler. Or God. That's half of my enumeration.

Anyway, i was talking about life on Earth.

Sorry, wisp. Faith does not rely on lack of knowledge to be faith.
Then 'faith' and 'belief' are synonyms according to your (strange) definition. And saying 'belief requires faith' would be a tautology.
Perhaps an incomplete knowledge,
Incomplete knowledge means partial lack of knowledge, and you have denied it.

Seriously. Just tell me what faith is to you (avoid dictionaries, please).

For example, take your hypothetical "x". You observe it's effect on the environment.
'X' is passive.
There is evidence.
'X' is conceptual.
But you have faith in your hypothesis that you need X to hear because it fits into your understanding of hearing.
It's just lazy thinking. Occam's razor should take care of 'X'.
But what if your understanding is incomplete? What if hearing is not really hearing at all? What if the perception of sound is a shared hallucination?
I'm not defending the concept of 'X'. It should have never been coined, just like your 'faith'.
It doesn't matter because you have faith in your ability to hear head-banging music when you plug in your favorite CD.
Sorry... Are you trying to make a point? I'm trying really hard to see it.
You have faith in your wife (I presume) because of the evidence.
You presume? You said that faith is self-evident. I don't get your concept of 'faith', so ask me whatever you need to establish if i have faith on her or not (i honestly have no clue).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:14 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Adam and Eve: Were they real?
And every animal was in the Garden?
Do species blur, or are they clear to you?

Again, Adam & Eve may be interpreted several ways one of them being a "crowd" of people begotten all at once.  Species blurring? I do not believe so. I have yet to see a modern day offspring being born with new genetics to start a new species.
Now as for the highly & for all purposes impossibility of the odds of a cell coming into being on it's own without a creator: You say look at me, I exist against these odds just as a golf ball lands on one of countless blades of grass. A golf ball has to land on "some" blade of grass no matter what but you are comparing that to utmost extremely complex human forms coming into being. The thing is the golf ball and the blades of grass already exist so that is a false analogy. I will pick a nbr from 1 to 10^40 and I want you to guess it. Do you think you would in 14 billion years?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:27 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice! Some almost-answers!

Adam and Eve: Were they real?
And every animal was in the Garden?
Do species blur, or are they clear to you?

Again, Adam & Eve may be interpreted several ways one of them being a "crowd" of people begotten all at once.
Begotten? How?

Is that what you believe that happened?

Species blurring? I do not believe so.
How many elephant species do you think that have ever lived? How many of them are alive today?

Are wallabies and kangaroos one or two species?

Tigers and lions?

Wolves and dogs?

I have yet to see a modern day offspring being born with new genetics to start a new species.
When you have no clue about how Evolution works, and you don't feel in the mood to google, at least ask. Because that's not how Evolution works, and nobody that understands Evolution would ever say that.

Biological Evolution is the change of frequencies of alleles in a given population over time.

'Alleles' would be like 'versions' of a gene (like isotopes to an element). They compete to occupy the same locus (slot) in the same chromosome.

In humans, alleles for dark skin are more successful in sunny climates. Alleles for white skin are more successful under gray skies (because white skins take more advantage of the few UV rays it gets in a cloudy climate, and uses them to produce vitamin D).

So being born with a new set of genes is not required or predicted by the TOE.

Now as for the highly & for all purposes impossibility of the odds of a cell coming into being on it's own without a creator:
So you say. And you have demonstrated your utter ignorance about the process of Evolution.
You say look at me, I exist against these odds just as a golf ball lands on one of countless blades of grass.
Indeed.
A golf ball has to land on "some" blade of grass no matter what
Man, that's exactly the point.
but you are comparing that to utmost extremely complex human forms coming into being.
AAAAND you still don't get it...
Humans???? Evolution doesn't care about humans!! Just like humanity doesn't care about YOU!

And there's nothing extreme about humans in particular. We have consciousness, but that's not an extreme.

The thing is the golf ball and the blades of grass already exist so that is a false analogy.
When we came to be, life already existed too. So it's a good analogy.
I will pick a nbr from 1 to 10^40 and I want you to guess it. Do you think you would in 14 billion years?
Perhaps... Was it three?

Is there any way you will understand this simple concept?

Evolution didn't 'guess' how to make humans! Evolution never intended to produce any humans!!! Just like the ball didn't intend to land on any particular leaf of grass!!

Besides you treat Evolution like it's some trial and error process that gets rid of partial successes to start all over again.

Open your mind a little bit. Your brains won't fall out.

Oh, check it out. You set to answer 3 questions, and answered just one (and i have more questions about that answer).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:21 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Answer to my friend Skepticus

more copy pasta from a creationist source like AIG is it?


Sorry to disappoint, but no –however I would not hesitate to go to sites like AIG for additional information just like you go to particular trusted sources for your information on things you are not fully conversant with. You trust some, I trust others.

Do you really wonder about the question you are positing ….are you only towing the party line?


Yes I wonder a lot about the question I’m positing. I wonder how a philosophical bent can make people, supposedly intent on unprejudiced science be so blind to the reason for their choice of dating technique. There are so many others that line up with each other so much better  - but they don’t support evolution. Thus, the only technique that supports long ages, even though it is routinely orders of magnitude out for testing on rocks of known age, is favoured above all others. We know it doesn’t work on rocks of known age –why then is it the geologist’s favoured technique? Just who is resorting to ‘delusional bollocks??

The scientific method is what you are presently challenging no less


Actually I have no general problem with the scientific method –what I have a problem with is grouping evolution with all of its philosophical bias in with actual science.
Mixing evolution in with experimental repeatable science unsullied by imaginative speculation is obfuscation. They do not belong in the same box. Line them up –physics, chemistry, evolution and biology. Pick the odd one out…. Evolution, well done! You see evolution is historical science, it is story telling at its worst based on a philosophical prejudice that all things that look designed are actually not designed.
‘Designoids’, as Richard Dawkins would have it. The problem with evolutionary scientists is that they have spent too long seeing circles where there are squares and now they believe that there are no squares  and have convinced genuine scientists, that work with the scientific method properly, to join them in their fantasy world of science fiction.

You appear to imagine that evolutionary thinking put the computer together but you’re wrong – philosophy does not put computers together –real repeatable science puts computers together and it does not matter whether the scientists doing the research on computers believe that we were created or evolved, they are just as capable of doing the physics and the maths that count in such technological development.

“Aah but we see evolution happening before our eyes,” you say. No actually you only see as much as the Bible has already told us all – life gives rise to life and kind gives rise to kind. Any suggestion that fish can give rise to people eventually is pure imagination, not based on the scientific method at all.

In science, however, there is this inevitable and unavoidable link to reality.


Yes, in actual science there is, and that is good. I am not opposed to science. What  I am opposed to is the philosophy of evolution and the way that science and scientists have to be bent to accommodate it. There is a wilful blindness to reality in the evolution sector that does not extend to all scientists but it is pervasive enough to be a problem especially when those scientists would like to protect Darwinian myths from scrutiny by shutting out debate on its shortcomings. You see evolution may be the prevailing view now, but on the other hand Nazism was the prevailing view in Germany. Popular is not necessarily the same as true.

And that means the peer review process that provides a motive to keep the science real and accountable to factual enquiry seems to work well.


There are many scientists out there that that are not free to identify with any position contrary to Darwinism and it is an indictment of contemporary ‘science’ that cannot be ignored. It seems that science and truth have taken divergent paths. Darwin did not find it strange that people should have difficulty with his theory –he accepted challenges to it as a scientific process. His theory would need to withstand the scrutiny of scientific challenges. To do otherwise would not be science but enforced dogmatism.
Enforced dogmatism would, by peer ridicule, legal intimidation or threat of career-ending retaliation, put obstacles in front of anyone who wished to teach evidence against Darwinism. The subject, it seems, is off limits to contrary viewpoints. No choice, no tolerance. No diversity. Just state-imposed, peer-regulated and legally enforced silence on the topic. That’s what enforced dogmatism would look like.

Does it occur to you that in your vendetta against evolution, you incriminate the whole scientific method, accuse science of a wilfully conspiracy and scientists of being dishonest?


That would be the paranoid position to take. I have a problem with that which is not true particularly that which is fed to children at school and college while the evidence against that viewpoint is systematically hidden from their view. I have a problem with enforced dogmatism. Give me good repeatable experimentally verifiable science any day and I will have no complaint. I’d say that mostly that is what goes on in science. There are a lot of good honest scientists out there –indoctrinated ones perhaps, but generally honest ones.
Tell me water boils at a specific temperature under given conditions and I have no problem –it can be repeated and I have no argument, but do not tell me that dinosaurs turned into birds or that single celled organisms turned into microbiologists over a very long period of time. At some point I need to draw the line and ask you whether that is science or whether, without you noticing, philosophy has crept into the equation and made science look like a new religion that is being enforced on the world.

It is not true that science cannot speak of, or study, an entity that eludes ‘direct sensorial detection’ as scientific naturalism insists. Concepts such as electricity and gravity are acknowledged by observing their effects. There is evidence enough to speak of them as though they were real. Likewise there is evidence of design all around us (Dawkins ‘designoids’ aside) and it should not require leaps of faith to ascribe design to an unseen designer.
Certainly there are two possibilities –life was created or life came about by chance and natural processes. One should not be eliminated by philosophical bias alone –that is not science.








-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:35 AM on March 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:35 AM on March 7, 2009 :
We know it doesn’t work on rocks of known age –why then is it the geologist’s favoured technique? Just who is resorting to ‘delusional bollocks??


OK, one more time.  The article you cited was not dating the lava.  It was dating inclusions.

Suppose I build a wall tomorrow out of bricks I salvaged from an old building.  If some of the date stamps on the bricks say 1888, how old is the wall?  It's the same concept.  If I date the mortar, it will come out young, if I date the bricks, they will be old.

You have cited the paper, it does not say what you are claiming it to say.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:32 AM on March 7, 2009 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 08:32 AM on March 7, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 05:35 AM on March 7, 2009 :
We know it doesn’t work on rocks of known age –why then is it the geologist’s favoured technique? Just who is resorting to ‘delusional bollocks??




OK, one more time.  The article you cited was not dating the lava.  It was dating inclusions.

Suppose I build a wall tomorrow out of bricks I salvaged from an old building.  If some of the date stamps on the bricks say 1888, how old is the wall?  It's the same concept.  If I date the mortar, it will come out young, if I date the bricks, they will be old.

You have cited the paper, it does not say what you are claiming it to say.



So then we debate on how old the "wall" is.  How would you define "wall"?  Just exactly what is the "wall"?  About the stamp "1888".  Is it A.D. or B.C.? or is it even a year number.  Maybe they are replicas of an 1888 style brick?  Maybe it is a P.O. number, or an employee I.D. number?  Who made the bricks? Acme?  Who laid the mortar?  Is it  Portland cement mortar?  Lime mortar?  What about the margin of error in dating the mortar?  Was it laid on a rainy day? All in one day?  Or maybe it took several years to complete the wall?  At what altitude was the wall built?  Also is it valid to ask why the wall was built?




-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 09:34 AM on March 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Philosophy? Man, we're dealing with facts. You can say that we got the facts wrong, but you can't say it's philosophy.

No philosophy says "This is how things happened. If it was found that X thing did not happen, this philosophy would fall." Theories do that. Theories deal withevidence, while philosophies don't.

Evolution is not a philosophy, nor a religion, under no reasonable  point of view. If you think it is, you have a serious confusion about those terms.

Seriously. Say that it's an invalid theory, and present your evidence. Callint it names won't make it go away.

Presenting evidence against Evolution should be a piece of cake. Just find species that don't fit in the evolutionary tree.

It should be easy, because if Evolution was wrong, there's no reason for us to be able to put the pieces together.

But we can.

Perhaps God made all the pieces at once. But why would he do that? Why make them fit so neatly? To test our faith?

Did you know that 160 elephant species (alive and extinct) have been found?

How many of them are alive today? Please, answer this.

Is it clear to you if wolves and dogs belong to the same 'kind' or not?

Your 'kinds' mean nothing. If thy do, clarify them. Which species belong to the same kind, and which ones don't?

We have a systematic knowledge. Everything fits. You try to attack it by calling it 'philosophy'. I don't think you plan to back this up.

There is a wilful blindness to reality in the evolution sector that does not extend to all scientists but it is pervasive enough to be a problem especially when those scientists would like to protect Darwinian myths from scrutiny by shutting out debate on its shortcomings.
Shortcomings? Put up, or shut up.
You see evolution may be the prevailing view now, but on the other hand Nazism was the prevailing view in Germany. Popular is not necessarily the same as true.
Nazism didn't deal with facts or evidence.
Nazism told people what to do. Scientific theories don't. They are models to descript some aspect of Nature.

Enforced dogmatism? Just present your undebunked evidence.
Positive evidence would be best. Instead of just saying how things were not, tell us how they were. With evidence to back it up, please.

Repeatable science... You believe that a planet can't orbit a star, because nobody has repeated that process?

Give me good repeatable experimentally verifiable science any day and I will have no complaint.
Liar.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:42 AM on March 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 08:34 AM on March 7, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 08:32 AM on March 7, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 05:35 AM on March 7, 2009 :
We know it doesn’t work on rocks of known age –why then is it the geologist’s favoured technique? Just who is resorting to ‘delusional bollocks??




OK, one more time.  The article you cited was not dating the lava.  It was dating inclusions.

Suppose I build a wall tomorrow out of bricks I salvaged from an old building.  If some of the date stamps on the bricks say 1888, how old is the wall?  It's the same concept.  If I date the mortar, it will come out young, if I date the bricks, they will be old.

You have cited the paper, it does not say what you are claiming it to say.



So then we debate on how old the "wall" is.  How would you define "wall"?  Just exactly what is the "wall"?  About the stamp "1888".  Is it A.D. or B.C.? or is it even a year number.  Maybe they are replicas of an 1888 style brick?  Maybe it is a P.O. number, or an employee I.D. number?  Who made the bricks? Acme?  Who laid the mortar?  Is it  Portland cement mortar?  Lime mortar?  What about the margin of error in dating the mortar?  Was it laid on a rainy day? All in one day?  Or maybe it took several years to complete the wall?  At what altitude was the wall built?  Also is it valid to ask why the wall was built?


You're starting to understand.  It's important to know what you are dating and why.  Bearing false witness by claiming people are saying one thing when they are saying the opposite does nothing but degrade the image of Christianity.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:48 AM on March 7, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does there not have to be a day when something is born that has a new gene that it's mother did not have? How else does it occur?

So you say evolution DOESN'T CARE? It's pretty remarkable that we have an EXTREMELY ordered system in all living things, and amazing that my eyes can focus and see and guide me thru life. But evolution didn't care? The odds are overwhelming miniscule that we ended up the way we did. So go ahead and keep guessing my number, you will NEVER guess it in billions of years!

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 12:14 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp,
Faith is knowing without "knowing". I know (intellectual certainty) that the moon will not crash into the earth tomorrow. I don't know (complete knowledge) exactly why it won't, but I know it just the same. I have evidence and experience to back up my faith in the moon staying away from the earth. You know (intellectual certainty) that evolution explains the variety of organisms. You don't know (complete knowledge) exactly how. But you have faith that it did which is backed up by evidence and experience.
I know my wife won't cheat on me because I have faith in her fidelity backed up by the evidence of our strong relationship and healthy sex life. Faith with evidence.
I have faith in your ability to understand this based on your demonstrated reasoning skills. I don't have faith in your agreeing with me based on your willingness to obfuscate.

Then 'faith' and 'belief' are synonyms according to your (strange) definition. And saying 'belief requires faith' would be a tautology.

They are synonyms. But usually faith is used to describe belief with a strong conviction. Faith is belief with exercise.
Perhaps an incomplete knowledge,

Incomplete knowledge means partial lack of knowledge, and you have denied it.

Here is an example of obfuscation. What I have denied is that faith is only faith if it lacks ANY knowledge as you have previously implied. I have proven you wrong.

Do you believe in evolution? Are you strongly convicted? Than you have faith in evolution.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:27 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp  Evolution is not a philosophy, nor a religion, under no reasonable  point of view. If you think it is, you have a serious confusion about those terms.

Sorry, wisp but you asked for this:

Main Entry:
   phi·los·o·phy
Pronunciation:
   \fə-ˈlä-s(ə-)fē\
Function:
   noun
Inflected Form(s):
   plural phi·los·o·phies
Etymology:
   Middle English philosophie, from Anglo-French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
Date:
   14th century

1 a (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1)archaic : physical science (2): ethics c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

Please explain how evolution is not a philosophy.


wisp  Presenting evidence against Evolution should be a piece of cake. Just find species that don't fit in the evolutionary tree.

That presupposes your acceptance of the hypothetical tree. I don't believe in the tree.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:37 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:27 PM on March 7, 2009 :
Wisp,
Faith is knowing without "knowing". I know (intellectual certainty) that the moon will not crash into the earth tomorrow. I don't know (complete knowledge) exactly why it won't, but I know it just the same. I have evidence and experience to back up my faith in the moon staying away from the earth. You know (intellectual certainty) that evolution explains the variety of organisms. You don't know (complete knowledge) exactly how. But you have faith that it did which is backed up by evidence and experience.
I know my wife won't cheat on me because I have faith in her fidelity backed up by the evidence of our strong relationship and healthy sex life. Faith with evidence.
I have faith in your ability to understand this based on your demonstrated reasoning skills. I don't have faith in your agreeing with me based on your willingness to obfuscate.

Then 'faith' and 'belief' are synonyms according to your (strange) definition. And saying 'belief requires faith' would be a tautology.

They are synonyms. But usually faith is used to describe belief with a strong conviction. Faith is belief with exercise.
Perhaps an incomplete knowledge,

Incomplete knowledge means partial lack of knowledge, and you have denied it.

Here is an example of obfuscation. What I have denied is that faith is only faith if it lacks ANY knowledge as you have previously implied. I have proven you wrong.

Do you believe in evolution? Are you strongly convicted? Than you have faith in evolution.



I hope this illustration helps all to understand what faith truly is:

"  There was a tightrope walker, who did incredible aerial feats. All over Paris, he would do tightrope acts at tremendously scary heights. Then he had succeeding acts; he would do it blindfolded, then he would go across the tightrope, blindfolded, pushing a wheelbarrow. An American promoter read about this in the papers and wrote a letter to the tightrope walker, saying, "Tightrope, I don't believe you can do it, but I'm willing to make you an offer. For a very substantial sum of money, besides all your transportation fees, I would like to challenge you to do your act over Niagara Falls." Now, Tightrope wrote back, "Sir, although I've never been to America and seen the Falls, I'd love to come." Well, after a lot of promotion and setting the whole thing up, many people came to see the event. Tightrope was to start on the Canadian side and come to the American side. Drums roll, and he comes across the rope which is suspended over the treacherous part of the falls -- blindfolded!! And he makes it across easily. The crowds go wild, and he comes to the promoter and says, "Well, Mr. Promoter, now do you believe I can do it?" "Well of course I do. I mean, I just saw you do it." "No," said Tightrope, "do you really believe I can do it?" "Well of course I do, you just did it." "No, no, no," said Tightrope, "do you believe I can do it?" "Yes," said Mr. Promoter, "I believe you can do it." "Good," said Tightrope, "then you get in the wheel barrow."

The word believe, in Greek means "to live by". This is a nice story...makes you ask, how often do we say that we believe Christ can do it, but refuse to get in the wheelbarrow?  "

Faith goes beyond imaginations and ideas, and shows itself in action.  Faith is not as general a term as to just believe something in our minds.  What we truly have faith in will show in the way we act.  Whether it be in our own knowledge or in the knowledge of God.  If we believe evolution to be true of reality then we will act in a manner supportive of our beliefs.  I.E. "there is no 'right' or 'wrong'", "whatever best adapts to the environment will survive".  Faith will filter what we truly believe to be true into how we conduct our lives.  I.E. "God is the great moral authority",  "to violate morality violates God".  If I truly have faith that God is in authority I will submit to His authority, by acting in a manner that does not violate His standard.







-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 1:16 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Wisp,
Faith is knowing without "knowing". I know (intellectual certainty) that the moon will not crash into the earth tomorrow. I don't know (complete knowledge) exactly why it won't, but I know it just the same.
Hum... Right.
I have evidence and experience to back up my faith in the moon staying away from the earth.
Yes. Just like when i say that i have faith that i can close my fist. No matter how much i study about electric impulses departing from my brain or my spine, and the way my muscles work. I'll never understand it entirely. But you're right. I understand some of it. And i still say that i have faith in it...

You know (intellectual certainty) that evolution explains the variety of organisms. You don't know (complete knowledge) exactly how.
Hum... That's true...
But you have faith that it did which is backed up by evidence and experience.
Hum... I see no flaws in your argument.

I know my wife won't cheat on me because I have faith in her fidelity backed up by the evidence of our strong relationship and healthy sex life. Faith with evidence.
Hum... I understand...
I have faith in your ability to understand this based on your demonstrated reasoning skills.
Why thanks you.
I don't have faith in your agreeing with me based on your willingness to obfuscate.
I don't see it, but ok.

Then 'faith' and 'belief' are synonyms according to your (strange) definition. And saying 'belief requires faith' would be a tautology.
They are synonyms. But usually faith is used to describe belief with a strong conviction.
Hum... That's true. It's usual.
Faith is belief with exercise.
I almost understand that.


Perhaps an incomplete knowledge,
Incomplete knowledge means partial lack of knowledge, and you have denied it.
Here is an example of obfuscation.
Sorry! :S
What I have denied is that faith is only faith if it lacks ANY knowledge as you have previously implied.
I know. That's easy to understand. BUT what i mean is this: The information about any subject can be divided in units of information. That's how you can have a partial knowledge on any subject. There are little sub-subjects about which you can have knowledge or not.

Would you agree? I thought that it was reasonable to conclude that we can only have faith about those parts, of any given subject, that we ignore.

I have proven you wrong.
Yes. I must have been wrong either by saying that i have faith that i can close my fist, or that i don't have faith in Evolution.

I have to think about which one, but i'm definitely wrong, and you have proved it.

Do you believe in evolution?
Yes.
Are you strongly convicted?
Hum... Yes.
Than you have faith in evolution.
According to your definition of 'faith' (that wasn't very strange after all, for 'strong conviction' is a standard interpretation of that word), you're right.

I prefer the definition "believing without understanding", but even then i've recognized that i don't understand Evolution entirely, so i guess you're right no matter what. Hum...

I guess... i have faith in Evolution.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:47 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good post, dubie. And nice story.

So, faith, to you, is believing with strength, and living up to what you believe. Right?

To me 'strength' means that something opposes it, and i believe that nothing opposes the TOE.

If strength is needed, it seems like you believe something in spite of something. And i don't believe in the TOE in spite of anything that i'm aware of.

But this whole 'faith' thing is very confusing.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:57 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp: Good post, dubie. And nice story.

So, faith, to you, is believing with strength, and living up to what you believe. Right?

To me 'strength' means that something opposes it, and i believe that nothing opposes the TOE.

If strength is needed, it seems like you believe something in spite of something. And i don't believe in the TOE in spite of anything that i'm aware of.

But this whole 'faith' thing is very confusing.


You get an "A" for effort Wisp but I just don't think Timbrx, gluteus and dubie are interested in looking at the evidence supporting evolution with an objective eye.

This whole "faith" thing is a red herring.  I remember when I was a freshman in college taking a philosophy 101 course. I came home and boldly announced to my dad that the only true knowledge is knowledge gained from direct experience and that everything else was "faith".   Of course I hadn't read the whole chapter, so when my dad asked me how I could trust my "perceptive process" when "experiencing" something, I stammmered a little and concluded that everything I did was based on "faith".  Without "faith" I would not be able to emerge from the fetal position in my bed in the morning.  But I digress.

What Timbrex, gluteus, dubie and other creationists fail to understand is that "faith" in an explanation that has zero scientific evidence (Biblical Creationism) is not the same as "faith" in an explanation that has mountains of scientific evidence (evolution).  I'll take it further and say "faith" in something that is scientifically absurd (biblical creation) is not the same as faith in something that is scientifically sound (evolution).

As for "obsfucation", the only obfuscating being done on these boards is being done by the creationists.

Could one of you creos present one incorrectly dated fossil that has been accepted by mainstream science? Go to AIG if you have to.

Could one of you creos please explain why the genetic evidence  that links chimps and humans to a common ancestor is invalid? Go to AIG if you have to.


Could one of you creos explain how you determined that your bible translation is the correct bible translation?

Timbrx?...Gluteus?...Dubie?...Bueller?

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 4:10 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

fredguff
What Timbrex, gluteus, dubie and other creationists fail to understand is that "faith" in an explanation that has zero scientific evidence (Biblical Creationism) is not the same as "faith" in an explanation that has mountains of scientific evidence (evolution).  I'll take it further and say "faith" in something that is scientifically absurd (biblical creation) is not the same as faith in something that is scientifically sound (evolution).

As we "creos" ( I like that better than "fundies". Thanks.) have so often pointed out, we have the same information. The interpretation is different. I admit that your interpretation of the evidence is less absurd to me as mine is to you. And you're right. The issue is not about faith but facts. The reason it came up is because, equally or not, both sides rely on faith where the facts leave off.

fredguff
As for "obsfucation", the only obfuscating being done on these boards is being done by the creationists.

You're just confusing the issue. (joke)

fredguff
Could one of you creos present one incorrectly dated fossil that has been accepted by mainstream science? Go to AIG if you have to.

I believe the correct creos credo is "all of them, but how does anyone prove it?"

fredguff
Could one of you creos please explain why the genetic evidence  that links chimps and humans to a common ancestor is invalid? Go to AIG if you have to.

The same God created chimps and humans. I guess He liked the pattern. The "genetic link" is in the interpretation of the evidence.


fredguff
Could one of you creos explain how you determined that your bible translation is the correct bible translation?

I believe that the Bible represents a means of communicating the word of God. The true Word of God is in the person of Jesus. All else is our attempt to pass on the accumulated knowledge. The only true interpretation is in the form of the Holy Spirit. I believe Gods Spirit inspired the authors, interpreters and believers to preserve the message of His Perfect Word in the imperfect written human language. The evidence that this was accomplished lies in the fact that from the oldest dead sea scrolls and Greek manuscript to the newest modern transliteration the message of God remains constant: The only way to God must be provided to us by God for God's glory.

Gluteus?...Dubie?...Bueller?...Lester?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:58 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The issue is not about faith but facts. The reason it came up is because, equally or not, both sides rely on faith where the facts leave off.


NOT TRUE. Creationists resort to faith. Scientists simply generate hypotheses and then set about testing them. There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE.



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 7:57 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I like to, and already posted this, to keep things simple and not "obfuscate" by not going off on too many tangents.

Does there not have to be a day when something is born that has a new gene that it's mother did not have? How else does it occur?

So you say evolution DOESN'T CARE? It's pretty remarkable that we have an EXTREMELY ordered system in all living things, and amazing that my eyes can focus and see and guide me thru life. But evolution didn't care? The odds are overwhelming miniscule that we ended up the way we did. So go ahead and keep guessing my number, you will NEVER guess it in billions of years!

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:12 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you say evolution DOESN'T CARE? It's pretty remarkable that we have an EXTREMELY ordered system in all living things, and amazing that my eyes can focus and see and guide me thru life.

but life isn't extremely ordered.  Look at any organisms genetic structure, look at all the inactive regions, look at the ERVs, look at the broken sequences.  And why is it amazing your eyes can focus when natuaral selection would have quickly weeded out any eyes that didn't focus enough to give their owner an advantage.  You don't seem to understand how natural selection works or you wouldn't think it was so amazing.

But evolution didn't care?

Correct, evolution is a process, it isn't intelligent, so it doesn't care.  Does water care if it freezes?

The odds are overwhelming miniscule that we ended up the way we did.

Show us how you calculated those odds...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:37 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 5:58 PM on March 7, 2009 :

As we "creos" ( I like that better than "fundies". Thanks.) have so often pointed out, we have the same information.


Do you really feel that that has been demonstrated?

If a creo leader disperses incorrect information, do they deserve your trust?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:42 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 5:58 PM on March 7, 2009 :

As we "creos" ( I like that better than "fundies". Thanks.) have so often pointed out, we have the same information.


apoapsis
Do you really feel that that has been demonstrated?

The fact that we have the same information is self evident. Just look out your window. Life abounds.

apoapsis
If a creo leader disperses incorrect information, do they deserve your trust?

When a creo leader gets caught propagating an interpretation that has been proven false than the trust factor definitely goes down. But I don't automatically assume that everything he says is by default false.
I think I get your point, though. One falsity and further interpretations would require greater scrutiny. Several falsities and you've pretty much lost trust in his interpretations altogether.

Contrary to what waterboy believes creos do believe that facts matter. My personal primary objection to evolutionists arguments is that they claim that the big picture TOE is a fact when it is only an interpretation of the facts. Same as ID.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:10 AM on March 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:10 AM on March 8, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 5:58 PM on March 7, 2009 :

As we "creos" ( I like that better than "fundies". Thanks.) have so often pointed out, we have the same information.


apoapsis
Do you really feel that that has been demonstrated?

The fact that we have the same information is self evident. Just look out your window. Life abounds.


I wasn't talking about looking out the window.  I knew that chicken teeth had been observed from casual reading I did years ago.  It's totally out of my field.

I make it a point to learn about the universe, professionally and privately.

Where did you learn about chicken teeth?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:38 AM on March 8, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

apoapsis
Where did you learn about chicken teeth?

From you. But I've been bitten by a chicken. It felt like two big opposing teeth.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:59 AM on March 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:59 AM on March 8, 2009 :
apoapsis
Where did you learn about chicken teeth?

From you. But I've been bitten by a chicken. It felt like two big opposing teeth.


So we have the same access to information, but we don't have the same information.

I've been nipped by a chicken too. ;-)



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:17 AM on March 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fredguff
just don't think Timbrx, gluteus and dubie are interested in looking at the evidence supporting evolution with an objective eye.


It appears there is no such thing as an objective eye -we all look at the same evidence through our worldview -which is our bias. Nobody is without a bias.The thing is that we say that the evidence that exists better supports the belief that a creative intelligence was required to get life started and that chance and natural processes could not possibly do the job.
To us it seems to be impossible to get an evolutionist to look at the evidence objectively.

Could one of you creos present one incorrectly dated fossil that has been accepted by mainstream science?


I'd have to concur with Timbrx on that one. All the layers were dated before radiometric dating was invented and fossils that get dated according to which index fossils they get found with, are dated with circular reasoning. Wishful thinking and selected dates seem to be the norm with evolutionary time frames.

Could one of you creos please explain why the genetic evidence  that links chimps and humans to a common ancestor is invalid?


Just another attempt to give uncontrovertible evidence for the link between humans and chimps. Always trying to prove what you've already assumed to be true. Wonder why we find these attempts so easy to poke holes in? We know the assumptions that go with them.

Waterboy
NOT TRUE. Creationists resort to faith. Scientists simply generate hypotheses and then set about testing them. There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE.


Sorry to be the one to disappoint you Waterboy but there is no such thing as an unbiased person going to the evidence without preconceptions. We all look at the same evidence. We come to very different conclusions and that is all about interpretation.

gluteus maximus
The odds are overwhelming miniscule that we ended up the way we did.


Personally I just have to look at DNA and the way the coded information works, the multitude of proteins being put together by the ribosomes; so many many proteins so fast and in just the right quantities and shapes required to do their job -if there is no intelligent organizer behind that microfactory than... I'm sorry you guys have a LOT more faith than I do.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:56 AM on March 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just another attempt to give uncontrovertible evidence for the link between humans and chimps. Always trying to prove what you've already assumed to be true. Wonder why we find these attempts so easy to poke holes in?
No. We wonder why you don't believe them, since you have found NO holes.
We know the assumptions that go with them.
Are you saying that you can never assume anything? How can we acquire any knowledge then?

Please, don't tell us how easy it is to poke holes. Just go ahead and poke them. Quoting passages from the Bible doesn't count.

Sorry to be the one to disappoint you Waterboy but there is no such thing as an unbiased person going to the evidence without preconceptions.
A bias to believe what has already been demonstrated is a good bias.

You could make a good use of this bias.

Just stop calling it names. Say what's wrong with the theory.

Is it the time frames? They have been tested by many different methods.

To keep believing your myths you need to believe that the decaying rates (for radioactive isotopes) changed, that the continental drift slowed down dramatically, that the mutation rate (evolution actually) sped up dramatically since the flood event (to produce 160 elephant species, 157 of which died immediately), and then halted (i don't know when or why), that trees used to produce several rings per year, that the speed of light changed, that glacial layers were laid at a crazy rate, that a global rapid flood magically produced layers (try it at home, it doesn't happen) with bugs that go from simple at the bottom (so stupid that didn't try to swim higher) to complex at the top (humans are on top because they were smarter than every sea and land creatures, and so stayed afloat and not a single one of them went a couple of layers down)...

Personally I just have to look at DNA and the way the coded information works, the multitude of proteins being put together by the ribosomes; so many many proteins so fast and in just the right quantities and shapes required to do their job -if there is no intelligent organizer behind that microfactory than... I'm sorry you guys have a LOT more faith than I do.
You keep saying that.

The fact is that what we say is pretty simple. Gene duplication happens. Other kinds of mutation happen. The bad ones don't make it.

It's very simple. You just don't want to understand it, for fear that your god will send you to Hell.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:56 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is "oddly" interesting

On Christmas Day in 2002, Jack Whitaker, of Scott Depot, West Virginia, got lucky, becoming the largest single-ticket lottery jackpot winner until that time in North America. His prize? A Powerball jackpot of $314.9 million. Over a hundred million other tickets didn’t match
If someone won even two such lotteries consecutively, we would all assume the results were rigged. And yet, when it comes to life existing in our universe, the odds are far more remote than winning a hundred Powerball lotteries consecutively.

Physicist Paul Davies comments, “The conclusion must be that we live in a world of astronomical unlikelihood.
Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life is one out of 10^124, a number beyond imagination.

So , is the Earth and  life itself rigged?


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:21 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

If you're only talking about people who 'believe' in evolution then this is not a debate about science. Scientists don't 'believe' in their hypotheses. They just test them.

Scientists DO develop confidence in their hypotheses when concerted efforts to disprove them fail. As I have said before confidence in the evolution hypothesis is currently running pretty high among people with a predisposition to use scientific method.

Confidence in creation is also pretty high... but only among people with a predisposition to 'BELIEVE' in divine beings.

Generally speaking objectivity in science is ascribed to hypotheses that are independent of the attributes of their 'authors'. Creation is dependent on belief in God which is an attribute of the author. That means creation falls way down the wrong end of the objectivity scale as a 'scientific' hypothesis.

Now, you are trying to argue that  evolutionists fail the objectivity test by 'believing' in evolution. Sounds a bit tautological to me. You are arguing that increasing confidence in ANY hypothesis amounts to a failure of objectivity. (And therefore discredits the hypothesis?)  I'm not convinced that your argument makes any sense at all.






-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 6:50 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well put, waterboy.

Gluteous, you don't know anything about math, or answering questions.

Evolution is not about chance, even if it plays some role.

If you're talking about abiogenesis, start another forum named 'Creationism VS. Abiogenesis'.

But even if you are, the principles of abiogenesis are not a big mystery.

How many elephants did Noah carry into the ark?


(Edited by wisp 3/8/2009 at 10:05 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:04 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excelent, insightful post waterboy.



Lester, I'm getting to you shortly.


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 08:28 AM on March 9, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis
   /ˌeɪbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnəsɪs, ˌæbioʊ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA
–noun Biology.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Origin:
AND Meriam webster:::
Etymology:
   New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
Date:
   1870

: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

Now you tell me what evidence of abiogenesis you are familiar with and that is not of the "supposed" definition.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:48 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nah. I'm tired of answering silly questions when you don't answer my good ones.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:05 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I asked my 'incredible odds' question a long time ago and you skirted it with a silly answer.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:30 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus - Pasteur's experiments did not disprove abiogenesis.  It only disproved the hypothesis at the time of the spontaneous generation of life.

Physicist Paul Davies comments, “The conclusion must be that we live in a world of astronomical unlikelihood.
Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life is one out of 10^124, a number beyond imagination.

So , is the Earth and  life itself rigged?


I think if you do further research on what Paul Davies thinks on the matter of abiogenesis you'll find that he is not saying that the odds of abiogenesis happening is not improbable at all.  

The fact is the probability quote you give are not relavent to abiogenesis.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:57 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion, speaking of abiogenesis, you saw a couple of posts ago I posted the dictionary definition. Abiogenesis is a term being thrown around as if it were fact. Has it ever been logically proven? I watched a video of, I forget his name, offering this about abiogenesis. In a  laboratory, they mixed a living cell with very hospitable solutions, IE all the life friendly elements, temperature, moisture, ideal breeding condition, amino acids, and the cell died, AND no spontaneous other cells formedin these ideal conditions. How come? But they could
outside in raw conditions of hostile nature?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:08 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus -

the origins of life is still work in progress.  It's obvious to me that abiogenesis did happen here on earth.  

Listen, if life origined the way Creationists think it did (as described in the Bible), then how do you explain the progression of the fossil record?  As far as I know, there aren't any occurrences of fossil lineage being out of order - ie; you don't see primate fossils mixed in with dinosaur fossils.  You don't see dinosaur fossils mixed in with Cambrian era fossils.  You don't see Cambrian fossils mixed in with Pre-Cambrian fossils.  etc, etc. etc.

Creationism can't explain that.  We go back to the earliest fossils known and they are of cyanobacteria - the stromatolites.  This progression of fossils is exactly what evolution predicts.  Creationism fails that.  

So it is LOGICAL that life began by abiogenesis.  If you want to say life had divine beginnings - well, where is your proof of that?  

Your example of putting a cell in a friendly environment, and it died, doesn't mean a thing.  I can smear some bacteria onto some agar and it will do just fine.

The early earth was not the same environment as it is today - because life changed that environment!  We already know that under the conditions of the primordial earth that the building blocks for life were available.  As wisp so nicely pointed out in the other thread - nature had a much larger laboratory and much more time.

If you want to say that God did it.  Fine.  Show me the evidence that God even exists.

That's the problem here.  Belief in God is faith-based.  You don't have any hard evidence that God exists.  But you believe God does exists without seeing any evidence.  That is faith.

I look around and see a marvel of life on earth.  It is absolutely mind-boggling to see the diversity.  And I marvel at what nature has done.  I said nature, not God.  If you examine the great diversity of life, you will see a pattern.  And evolution explains that pattern and process very well.  It makes sense to me.  Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, gluteus.  Maybe you don't want it to make sense.  

Science endeavors to understand nature, not God.  If you believe in the biblical God, that's fine.  But that God absolutely does not make sense to me at all.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:14 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Silly answer?

You have demonstrated that you didn't understand my answer.

Your calculations (that are not yours, i bet) are faulty.

You rely on 'chance', and will always rely on 'chance', no matter how many times we tell you that life did NOT arise by chance, and that chemical reactions are not guided by chance.

Leave chance alone.

Leave the dictionary alone too. You know we don't say that flies can just appear from rotten meat. Stop playing dumb. That's the 'abiogenesis' that has been debunked, and we're fine with that.

Nobody said that cells form spontaneously from random chemicals either. Get your facts straight.

How many elephants did Noah carry into the ark?
How many elephant species are alive today?
Do all marsupials share a common ancestor?
What about felines?
What about canines?
What about apes?




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:58 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp - that is funny!  :0)  

Protect your Creationist with eye and ear gaurds.  That's hilarious.

BTW - I give up - how many elephant species are there?  I would imagine Noah only took 2 elephants on the Ark, if he took any at all.  Did he know about elephants?  I wonder.  How many specific kinds of animals are mentioned in the Bible?  Did they know about kangaroos, bison, musk oxen, jaguars, gorrilas, komodo dragons, platapus?  How about the koala and panda?  Those two species have a pretty specialized diet, don't they?  Boy, that Ark must have been bigger than an Nimitz class aircraft carrier!  Noah must have been working day and night for years and years.  God sure was a slave driver, wasn't he.  And how does one get the genetic diversity that a population needs with only 1 mating pair of each species?  Isn't there a known problem with cross-breeding of limited individuals that leads to unhealthy populations of animals?  Isn't that why zoos try to have an active exchange of breeding animals?  There sure are a lot of holes in that story of Noah and his Ark.  

Hmmm, maybe Noah and the Ark was just meant to be a metaphor?  Maybe it was suppose to show how much faith Noah had in following God's word, showing the measure of his devotion?  

Stories about great floods are a dime a dozen.  Especially considering that all the early civilizations rose next to great rivers.  Floods were likely to occur.  And with the passage of time, some floods probably took on epic proportions.  Heck, look at the Legend of Gilgamesh.  Maybe the writers of the bible were influenced by stories from earlier cultures?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:49 AM on March 10, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 9:35 PM on March 7, 2009 :
Answer to my friend Skepticus


That was quite timely actually given the quantity of material I presented for your attention. So thanks Lester. Still you didn't have to do much thinking or research for that reply.

more copy pasta from a creationist source like AIG is it?


[Sorry to disappoint, but no –however I would not hesitate to go to sites like AIG for additional information just like you go to particular trusted sources for your information on things you are not fully conversant with. You trust some, I trust others.


I don't have to rely on trust when I am offered an explanation that can be understood as obviously true and inevitable under the prevailing circumstances. Like yourself, I can (and do) choose to educate myself to the point that I have a working knowledge and when presented with details of an idea, I can fit them in with my existing understanding. If they do not fit in with my existing understanding, I have a discrepancy on my hands. That is what I have chosen to do. You apparently have not.

The disinformation creationists harvest from sources like AiG, are willful lies of creationist leaders like Ken Ham, Duane Gish, Henry Morris et al. These are repeat  offenders that are caught red handed and proven to be lying in front of their own audiences. Initially they recant and take back what ever claim they have made, but in the next creationist publication the same lie is repeated. These people are devious charlatans and frauds of the lowest caliber. Surely you don't just believe somebody because they happen to be clutching a Bible.

Skepticus: Do you really wonder about the question you are positing ….are you only towing the party line?

Lester: Yes I wonder a lot about the question I’m positing. I wonder how a philosophical bent...


No no no. I was asking about the questions you posit. You are trying to ignore the question and put me in the defensive position. Classic creationist ploy BTW. Don't run the discussion off the rails and create diversions please.

My question, was obviously about the questions you posit as objections or discrepancies with evolution and how critically you evaluate the sources. Judging from your response you are not interested in critical evaluation of the source of the information. The information is about a technique you don't understand, so you are clearly not in any position to be able to judge sensibly for yourself if the methods are valid. This means you are entirely dependent upon the credibility of your creationist sources.

You are clearly not motivated by any earnest desire to find truth in general, but rather to contradict and undermine evolution by natural selection (which you also don't seem to understand), seemingly on the full trust of your sources.

Skepticus: The scientific method is what you are presently challenging no less
Lester: Actually I have no general problem with the scientific method –what I have a problem with is grouping evolution with all of its philosophical bias in with actual science.


HA Hahahaha. Um those dating techniques you mentioned, they wouldn't happen to rely on the laws of physics by any chance would they? Coz I always thought they did. And, ah.. all the fossil evidence that fundies attempt without understanding to discredit, that wouldn't happen to rely on the science of geology would it?  

Mixing evolution in with experimental repeatable science unsullied by imaginative speculation is obfuscation.


What you object to Gregor Mendel's repeatable pea experiments? I think Barbara McClintock and a few geneticists since, would want to tell you a thing or two about the laborious repetitive nature of  genetics research.

They do not belong in the same box. Line them up –physics, chemistry, evolution and biology. Pick the odd one out….


Physics gives rise to chemistry, which gives rise to, biology which gives rise to evolution; complexity, diversity etc. There's no odd one out in fact they are hopelessly interdependent fields of study. Biology would be a hopelessly meaningless tangle of inexplicable information about physical characteristics of living organisms, all of which would make little sense at all, without evolution by natural selection. You should try understanding it sometime.

Evolution, well done! You see evolution is historical science, it is story telling at its worst based on a philosophical prejudice that all things that look designed are actually not designed.


But why do you keep pretending to know these things. Why do you seem so indistinguishable from a stubborn zealot, who only wishes to attack WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING? Natural selection provides an absolutely beautiful explanation for the appearance of design. Once it is understood a person has one of those moments of revelation that the metaphor of a penny dropping barely captures. It is exhilarating as it is obvious to anybody who comprehends it. I do not choose to believe this idea, rather It is simply unavoidable.

You appear to imagine that evolutionary thinking put the computer together but you’re wrong –


You are being dishonest Lester. You know that is not what I was suggesting. I am trying to be patient with you and you might just like to pretend you have enough respect for that, to not create deliberate strawmen. Do you expect me to type out each point you deliberately misconstrue, with five large paragraphs of minuscule detail in a desperate effort to avoid giving you any chance to misconstrue my words?

philosophy does not put computers together –real repeatable science puts computers together and it does not matter whether the scientists doing the research on computers believe that we were created or evolved, they are just as capable of doing the physics and the maths that count in such technological development.


Incredible it is, how creationists always get that thing ass backwards? It's patently obvious, that what an engineer or a mathematician believes is not going alter their ability to do anything. Beliefs don't have causal influence on anything. Beliefs don't count for anything because, believing something doesn't make it true.  

The point you willfully ignored with that strawman is that, the laws of nature are dependable facts of reality that science must discover. They are not fictional scenarios which can be made up like biblical parables. Biological principals are no different than physics principals, and are attended to by the same scientific method and peer review process.

If it weren't for the fact that science in general deals with dependable facts of nature and that the scientific method was in good shape then you wouldn't expect to find the corresponding technology to compliment the theoretical principals. In this world, extremist religious fundamentalism, is apparently desperate to coerce or kill people to propagate religious beliefs. to protect religious interests. You expect anybody to believe that there is a conspiracy in science but only in the area where the knowledge is inconvenient to creationist dogma? Well they do say there is a sucker born every minute.

“Aah but we see evolution happening before our eyes,” you say. No actually you only see as much as the Bible has already told us all –


Where in the bible, does it describe Mendelian inheritance, Recombinant DNA, The transitional continuum of the geological column and mountains of fossils arranged by morphological relationships and tending towards modern forms in later eras? Better not forget wispy's  (220 was it wisp?) species of elephants. Then we have gene sequencing to reveal taxonomic relationships agreeing with the geological stratum and with comparative anatomy.

Add to that, Altruism, kin selection and of course Darwin's own revolution of natural selection as observed in numerous ways, by countless examples. I could go on for days of course. My bible must be missing a couple of pages. Like about the size of the biology section in my local university's library.

life gives rise to life and kind gives rise to kind. Any suggestion that fish can give rise to people eventually is pure imagination, not based on the scientific method at all.


Here we have a typical creationist statement that "gives rise" to the obvious naivety of the speaker. Now naivety is, in and of itself, in no way a vice. Not until we see authoritative scorn and derision of a subject about which the writer is naive, thats when the charge of innocent naivety, becomes arrogant, willful ignorance. What the hell would you know about the scientific method anyhow? If I had wanted to sound like less than a quarter wit, I wouldn't say anything half that smart.

In science, however, there is this inevitable and unavoidable link to reality.
Yes, in actual science there is, and that is good. I am not opposed to science.


Only, biology, biochemistry, physics, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and genetics. Anything to do with evolution or abiogenesis huh?

What  I am opposed to is the philosophy of evolution and the way that science and scientists have to be bent to accommodate it.


Science and scientists don't need to be bent to accommodate it.

There is a wilfull blindness to reality in the evolution sector...


Now theres a piece of wonderful scientific terminology, the  "evolution sector". You obviously have your own nomenclature for academic disciplines too.  

that does not extend to all scientists but it is pervasive enough to be a problem..


Ooooh!! You clever fellow. So you must be so intimately informed about the intellectual hygiene of  these science faculties then. Perhaps you were a dean at one or two leading universities. Worked as a publishing editor on a major peer review journal perhaps. How about post graduate, career development advisor. Um.. maybe You have a doctorate in science history, education or philosophy. Unless you're a community college dropout, who learned to type "AIG" in to a search engine. That could explain the vast wealth of insightful wisdom, about intellectual integrity you have acquired.

especially when those scientists would like to protect Darwinian myths from scrutiny by shutting out debate on its shortcomings.


Because they don't want to permit the supernatural creation story to be accepted huh? I wonder why they would all so comprehensively in you 'evolution sector', be anti-creation.

You see evolution may be the prevailing view now, but on the other hand Nazism was the prevailing view in Germany. Popular is not necessarily the same as true.


Mindbogglingly ignorant, inane comparisons are "not necessarily the same as true." either.

And that means the peer review process that provides a motive to keep the science real and accountable to factual inquiry seems to work well.
There are many scientists out there that that are not free to identify with any position contrary to Darwinism and it is an indictment of contemporary ‘science’ that cannot be ignored.


And you know this how?

It seems that science and truth have taken divergent paths.


Oh does it? I thought it was just the 'evolution sector'.

Darwin did not find it strange that people should have difficulty with his theory –he accepted challenges to it as a scientific process. His theory would need to withstand the scrutiny of scientific challenges. To do otherwise would not be science but enforced dogmatism.


Of course Darwin wouldn't find it strange if his process of evolution had met with any criticism. That is the nature of science, it is self vetting and encourages intellectual criticism. In Darwin's case the acceptance was overwhelming as should be expected of a  body of knowledge so completely true and factually correct. So you needn't pretend that there was a chorus of opposition within the scientific establishment.

I would thank you not to talk to me in tones of worldly wisdom about Evolution in particular, nor any science in general, as if you are entitled to benefit me with your contemptible ignorance. The above quote sounds dangerously like you are attempting to bestow some of your puerile misinformed rantings upon me, in the guise of knowledge.

I don't take education about science from somebody who hasn't a foggiest clue about scientific fact, nor how science is done, and I don't like a patronizing tone coming from somebody with such comprehensive ignorance of the subject you are professing to know about. SO be a) naive or b) knowledgeable, but don't be 'a' and pretend to be 'b'.

Enforced dogmatism would, by peer ridicule, legal intimidation or threat of career-ending retaliation, put obstacles in front of anyone who wished to teach evidence against Darwinism.

Now I am just not understanding you on just how the peer review process is failing in biology but not any other science. Still, other sciences do produce evidence which contradicts creationism and which creationists appose. My first point from the previous post, the one you completely ignored when you instead tried to attack my viewpoint, was that the scientific method and peer review process are universals that just can't be undermined, least of all in an isolated area of science.

Evolution is about as multidisciplinary as it gets and the scientific method cant be abandoned by a scientist under any circumstance. Unless you have some precise details and can justify these accusations.

It's going to sound pretty batty to anybody who knows how the scientific method works to suggest it could be corrupted just for evolution and the same goes for peer review.

The subject, it seems, is off limits to contrary viewpoints. No choice, no tolerance.


Why do you think it seems this way? How is it held off limits and how do you know this? You are just making baseless assertions here. Even if I wanted this to be true 100%, I couldn't be the slightest bit convinced, by what you are telling me. You are not giving evidence of this conspiracy and I am interested.  Come on Lester. This is your best chance with me. Demonstrate the pier review process is flawed.

The first thing you will learn is that the peer review journals are there to filter out bogus bullshit and publish valid science. The complaints of your con merchant, bullshit artist, heroes are that professional peer review journals won't go near their ridiculous twaddle. There is a very good reason for this. Creationist research is not based on good evidence, it is not based on good reasoning or both.

Valid research also tends to be supportive of a body of evidence supporting the same conclusions. Creationism makes absurd claims that would contradict masses and masses of well established knowledge, providing no explanation in return.

Alright? Creationist evidence for young earth biblical literalism doesn't exist. It's vibrant history of fabrication and misappropriation, misquotation etc, has historically been staged to put on a dog and pony show for scientifically illiterate laypeople.

Does it occur to you that in your vendetta against evolution, you incriminate the whole scientific method, accuse science of a wilfully conspiracy and scientists of being dishonest?
That would be the paranoid position to take.


Paranoid?? No! I'm not scared of creationists I just think they're incredibly arrogant, to contradict valid science which I understand and can see is plain fact, with absurd mythical Bullshit.

I have a problem with that which is not true...


You do have a problem with that which is not true. The problem is that it keeps coming out of your mouth (or off your fingertips in this case).

I also have a serious problem with that which is not true  especially when it is being spouted by ignorant creationist liars, who know very well they do not have the knowledge required to understand and criticize the factuality of evolution and yet have the brazen arrogance to face their critics and insinuate them as liars, especially when those critics understand evolution and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is rock solid fact.  

...particularly that which is fed to children at school and college while the evidence against that viewpoint is systematically hidden from their view.


I Have pangs of outrage that test my heartfelt convictions as a peace loving person, when people want access to children to pump their head full of disgusting, vile, abominable, bullshit such as the Bible is filled with. Anybody found trying to indoctrinate any child of mine would have bought themselves a free ride in a body bag. It's better that I don't have children than have to risk doing serious time for a crime of passion.

Now the leaders of your cult of lying vermin, set out decades ago to push for the baning of evolution in schools, since that didn't work they regrouped and attempted to masquerade as science, i.e. creation science, an outrageous cult of blatant lies which tried to push for an equal time in the science curriculum. Now they have adopted the cloak of Victorian natural theology, by rehashing the Rev. William Paley's watchmaker, to formulate ID theory.



Creationists are notorious for not sticking to one idea, and would push their fundamentalist hogwash by and convenient. means available. If you think they only want fair time to promote alternative views, you are either bullshiting for them, or brainwashed by them, or both.

I have a problem with enforced dogmatism.


I didn't know the creationists were holding you hostage. Wow! I thought your dogma was voluntary.

Give me good repeatable experimentally verifiable science any day and I will have no complaint. I’d say that mostly that is what goes on in science. There are a lot of good honest scientists out there –indoctrinated ones perhaps, but generally honest ones.


How can you be indoctrinated into an institution which has no doctrine. and again How is your banal speculation informed by anything other than fundie dogma?

Tell me water boils at a specific temperature under given conditions and I have no problem.


OK. Under the conditions that no God exists, at one atmosphere of pressure, water boils at 100 Degrees Celsius.  

–it can be repeated and I have no argument, but do not tell me that dinosaurs turned into birds or that single celled organisms turned into microbiologists over a very long period of time. At some point I need to draw the line and ask you whether that is science or whether, without you noticing, philosophy has crept into the equation and made science look like a new religion that is being enforced on the world.


What you need to do is first and foremost: Drop the pretense that you have any way of making valid criticism about evolution when you clearly don't understand it. You ain't got what it takes to make pronouncements about how evolution does or doesn't work, so you're mouthing off is just arrogant.

Then, invest in some thinking skills. learn a little bit about logic and reasoning from a source that doesn't also supply infantile comic books with co-existing humans and dinosaurs.  

Next, go and learn the basics of evolution. Darwinian natural selection, Mendelian inheritance,  

It is not true that science cannot speak of, or study, an entity that eludes ‘direct sensorial detection’ as scientific naturalism insists.


OH MAN!! Where to start with this one?!!

Who told you that bolloks? Do you think it deserves attention when you just blurt out a vacuous claim such as, scientific naturalism insists that "science cannot speak of, or study, an entity that eludes ‘direct sensorial detection'" Shit. It doesn't even deserve your attention when you first read it from whichever lame ass creationist blog you regurgitated it from. It is what, my dear fellow, we call an unsubstantiated claim

The general process for studying phenomena which can not be directly detected, is called inference. Now technically everything you might study/observe is done by inference, even observations you make with your direct senses. That is because we do not perceive the world directly. Our sense only operate in limited ranges and the sense data they produce is only used by our brain to create a model of reality. So your brain doesn't directly perceive things.

However real our perceptions seem we must accept that they are not directly experience but inferred by our brains as a representation. Having said that, What we usually refer to as inference, is the process of drawing conclusions. In essence, when somebody says "I'll believe it when I see it", they are saying they would accept the inference drawn by their brain, from the optical sense data of their eyes.

To draw valid conclusions, we do not require the subject in question to be directly observable. However lamentable your ignorance of science may be, since you already at least understand this point, it aught to be equally obvious that science does not pretend to draw it's conclusions from direct observation alone. Not even almost.

Concepts such as electricity and gravity are acknowledged by observing their effects. There is evidence enough to speak of them as though they were real.


You are trying to have your cake and eat it to.

Evolution is ironically something Fundies squeal noisily (and incorrectly) about not being directly observable and try to imply that it is  speculative, hypothetical, intangible and even mythical on those grounds. Now, here you are, getting on your soap box about your imaginary friend not being allowed to be included as a scientific hypothesis, on grounds of his failure in any test of direct empirical observation.

Unless you have a comic book understanding of naturalism as well a evolution, I don't see where you are getting this claim that anybody demands any evidence to be directly observable. That is a ridiculous strawman who is embarrassed you haven't even bothered to put any clothes on him. In fact he dosn't have anything to hold him together so he is just a pile of straw, at the bottom of an ominous looking cross. Since you seem to have a comic book understanding of everything else, you might like this:



Ironically, Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi professor, for the public understanding of science; who is no friend of fundamentalist Christianity, agrees with you, that The God Hypothesis is a scientifically testable set of claims. Other luminaries such as the late of biological evolution, Stephen Jay Gould, have argued (ironically in defense of the principle of a creator) that the Supernatural nature of  God, puts any empirical scrutiny off the table. The divine and the natural, in this view are seen as NOMA, Non-Overlapping MagisteriA.  

As Dawkins points out however:

God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, dis-coverable in principle if not in practice. If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally, in his favour. And even if God's existence is never proved or disproved with certainty one way or the other, available evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far from 50 per cent.


Nobody is trying to hold your imaginary friend away from the candle of reason, not on the basis of lacking sensory perception. It fails to become a working hypothesis of science, because it simply isn't working. It isn't manifested in the universe with empirical evidence. In fact the God hypothesis is tested from time to time, in some of the ways that such a God should be expected to interact in the natural world with empirical results. Just look up intercessory prayer experiments.

Next comes the conspiracy theory stuff right? To which I point out there is no conspiracy, there just is no evidence presented to do scientific research with. Then you will probably claim a bunch of fallacious criticisms of evolution, because you think that discrediting evolution, is the same as providing positive evidence for a God.

You clearly have a problem with the logic that; if a discrepancy is found in evolution, it is very far from good evidence that a supernatural creator exists. You obviously can not keep the two subjects separated. Look, you have just raised the complaint that God is excluded from scientific research. Now look at the subject which began this thread. Your own previous post, in fact began with our discussions about evolution and science in general.  Yet some how you keep positing Goddidit as your (excuse me) 'god given' alternative.

You have to establish your own evidence and arguments for Goddidit, ones which do not depend on the falsehood of evolution. Darwin's natural selection was not founded on the falsity of Lamarkism. Lamarkism fell because NS found it's own ground.

Likewise there is evidence of design all around us (Dawkins ‘designoids’ aside)


Mummy, Mummy!! I don't like these designoids! Well leave them on the side of your plate dear, and eat your mash and miracle whip.

Lester now you are pretending to be talking to somebody who is unaware of how the mechanism of natural selection actually works. Dawkins didn't invent 'designoids' even if he did coin the term. Your evidence, is not evidence of design and you have probably been told that countless times already. Natural Selection DOES, provide a natural, explanation for biological organization. William Paley's  watchmaker was dispensed with by Darwin. The only room for your God since then, is as an absurd Abiogenesis theory, which would be less probable than supposing life was farted out of the arse of a cosmic camel.  

and it should not require leaps of faith to ascribe design to an unseen designer.


Nope! Fiction writers ascribe supernatural powers to their superheroes without hesitation. It requires leaps of faith, to ignore infinitely more parsimonious natural explanations, for supernatural fantasies, containing unexplained Gods from nowhere, but I suppose you think that miracles are more parsimonious than natural processes.

Certainly there are two possibilities –life was created or life came about by chance and natural processes. One should not be eliminated by philosophical bias alone...


The philosophical bias is yours Lester. You posit the lack of "direct sensorial detection" as the grounds your creator God is neglected as a hypothesis. That is not the case. Hypocritically though it is one of the many criticisms Goddidits hurl at TOE. So Creationists simultaneously claim that 'direct sensorial detection' should not be required for God but that TOE should have 'observable evidence' WOW Goddidit & Cakeaneatit Too.

–that is not science.


I suppose you think AiG - Statement Of Faith is science.

(Edited by Skepticus 3/10/2009 at 04:24 AM).


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 03:45 AM on March 10, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 4 5 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.