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
     Unorganized chemicals

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

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're right.

No evidence, no research, no reasoning, no nothing.

Everything he says is easily refutable and refuted nonsense, but he doesn't care.

Lester... the little scratch on the roof of your mouth that would heal if only you could stop tonguing it, but you can't.

What would happen if we just stop answering him?
He'd claim victory.
So?
Would that be so bad?
Is it possible that he could convince anyone but himself?

Edit: Here, Lester. Have some more misquotes.
http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/examine.htm


(Edited by wisp 5/3/2009 at 04:24 AM).


-------
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: 3:18 PM on May 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
Evolution  is non-falsifiable.


This statement shows that Lester doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  Evolution certainly IS falsifiable.  If we were to discover fossils that were out of sequence that is predicted by TOE, then evolution would be in serious trouble right there.  

A simple example:  The Flintstones.  If we were to find hominid fossils besides dinosaur fossils, that would falsify evolution right there.

I wonder why no credible evidence has ever been presented that shows out-of-sequence fossils?  Hmmm, maybe it's because evolution really did happen!

Lester, you talk about the lack of billions and billions of fossil intermediates.  Let me ask you this:  Go for a walk in the woods, or the plains, or some other place in nature.  How many bones of modern day animals do you find lying around that are't more than weeks/months old?  I daresay that in most places you won't find many.  Why?  Fossilization of animal remains is a rare occurrence in most cases.  Think about it.  Bones get eaten and deteriorate through bacterial decay and weatherization.  Those that do get buried must then go through a minerialization process that turns them into fossils that can be preserved over long periods of time.  Even then fossils must survive crushing pressure of material that may be deposited on top of them.

Lester - go back and find some material to present to back your statements up.  Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:28 PM on May 2, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps a fitting response comes from a conservative Republican Christian Texas school board candidate:

The domain of science is surely though by definition confined to rational, testable and universal natural law. If I understand the crux of Dr. McLeroy's complaint, it is that the paradigmatic exclusion of supernatural events will by necessity lead to naturalistic explanations of observations. I don't suppose that there is any flaw with this logic, as far as it goes. Certainly, we are not free to simply define away the possibility of the supernatural. Whether the history of the universe may in fact be chronicled in succession of natural events, and is thus amenable to scientific description, is a question only for experiment and observation. The answer resounds in the affirmative. The wholesale forfeiture of mutually consistent advances in cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, anthropology, geology, biology, genetics, chemistry and physics required to accept the young-earth creationist's premise would shame the burning of the Alexandrine library in scope of intellectual loss. If the hand of a creator lies behind this design, he paints with a brush more subtle and more sublime than has been dreamt of in their philosophy.
Joel Walker


-------
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: 9:19 PM on May 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lovely!!

A conservative republican Christian Texan guy you say??



-------
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: 10:23 PM on May 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis - interesting note.  I looked up Joel Walker and he does indeed describe himself as a conservative Republican.  However, he seems to have a high regard for scientific integrity - he is an assistant professor of physics at Sam Houston State University.  From the letter he wrote to the Texas state board of education he is clearly a strong supporter of evolution.  He is also running for a position on the Texas state board of education.  He responds to the current chairman of the Texas SBOE, Don McLeroy, who is a supporter of ID.

Joel Walker - supporting science education

Although not a biologist, this is what he has to say about the fossil record, and evolution.

It is true that a comparatively rapid diversification (not instantaneous, but occurring over some tens of millions of years) into the antecedents of most modern phyla (the next largest grouping after kingdom) is seen in the fossils of the Cambrian and the preceding Ediacaran eras, beginning around 600 million years ago. This blossoming of sea life into a world dominated for billions of years by single cell organisms such as colonies of algae will not however be joined by even plant life on dry land for some additional 200 million years. Meanwhile, the first bony jawed fish are appearing, which will subsequently trace through to the amphibians and next the reptiles. Another hundred million years will pass before appearance of the first mammals, and almost as long again (in a separate schism from the reptilian branch) before the time of the dinosaurs, who themselves later fork into the lineage of birds. Only in the most recent several millions of years are hominid remains to be found. Taken in full, the accumulated evidence of a logically sequential appearance of living forms is at utter odds with the picture of an Earth whose age is measured in thousands of years, and whose flora and fauna originated fully formed, essentially simultaneously.




 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 03:06 AM on May 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As I've said before, creationism is not about Christianity, it's a form of bible worship.


-------
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: 10:16 AM on May 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I understand.

Yet i beg to disagree.

I don't see any fundamental difference, but a different shade of the same thing.

And since i like the extremes, i theoretically prefer fundamentalists.
To me they make a lot more sense than fence sitters.

If you want to test the usefulness of, say, a philosophy, take it to the extreme.
If you don't dare, or it doesn't sound smart, well, discard it altogether. That's my opinion.

Fundamentalists take it nearly to the extreme. Not the extreme, but well. As close as they can get.

May God prevent me from believing in Christianism! I'd conclude that i'd save more souls by killing sinless children of atheist parents than by convincing adults (and then shooting them, to send them straight to heaven, so they don't have the chance to be sinful again).


(Edited by wisp 5/3/2009 at 9:08 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: 9:07 PM on May 3, 2009 | IP
Mariel60

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists have created a controversy where none actually exists.  If viewed in a figurative sense Genesis actually parallels the scientific version of events.  The Bible was never intended to be a work of science. It was never intended to be read literally.  Science actually helps intelligent people see how great God really is -- it does not disprove the existence of God.  You should check out:
www.songofgenesis.org
This shows how there really is NO conflict between religion and science except in the minds of the creationists.


-------
Mariel
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:25 AM on May 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So what's the figurative poetry of "Go to that town, kill men, women and children, except for little virgin girls. You can take one or two per soldier, to rape them as you please."

What about this one "The will of a woman is due to her husband, and he will rule over her", or something like that?

What about stoning people to death?

Are you only defending the Genesis, or the whole book?

Is there any part of the Bible that is to be taken literally according to you?

Science actually helps intelligent people see how great God really is
I agree.

it does not disprove the existence of God.
If by "existence" you mean "manifestation within the confines of our universe", well yeah, it kinda does.



-------
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: 10:45 AM on May 27, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:38 AM on April 26, 2009 :
So, creatinist John Baumgardner's pro-YEC models are not good then?

Not necessarily, it all depends on what his preconceptions are and whether they are more or less in line with reality in comparison to the preconceptions of the naturalists.

So, reality has little import?
You see, when Baumgardner runs his program with YEC assumptions, he gets a young earth.  But when reality-based values are plugged into the software, we get more realsitic, old earth dates.  You see, when Baumgardner runs his software to be YEC friendly, he inputs values that he knows are incorrect, such as zero heat being generated within the earth.
That is what you have to do to produce YEC-friendly 'science.'

Of course for you, the answer to the question is obvious but that is your bias, everybody has one.
Yes, they do.  My bias tends toward not making stuff up to prop up your beliefs.


Why is this enormous?

How do proteins self-organize without their instructions?

You are setting up a tautology.  

What do you mean by 'self-organize'?  Which proteins?
The ones we have now?

If so, then you are setting up a strawman, too.

Where did the instructions come from? It’s all very theoretical that DNA came about by chance and random chemical attraction.

Hold on - are you talking about proteins or DNA?  They are not the same, you know.
The "instructions" in DNA are physical intweractions, not a pre-written set of instructions like you might get in a box when you buy a new bike or something.

Chance AND random?  Which is it?

Are you familiar with the work of Robert Hazen?

Too many people in the genetics field say that it is ‘not by chance’ and has nothing to do with natural attraction and chemical bonding.


Really?

Like who?  YEC John Sanford?

Since there is no evidence to suggest that DNA self-assembled into a code

There is no evidence that there was any 'purpose' behind the genetic code, and analyses of the genetic code indicate that it is not completely invariant.

that translates into specifically shaped proteins that work together with other specifically shaped proteins that just happen to interact three dimensionally, there is nothing ‘scientific’ about your assumptions that they did.

Is there anything scientific about your's - that an anthropomorphic deity, one of several recognized by the people's of the times, poofed it all into existence on a whim in 6 24 hour days no more than 10,000 years ago and in the process, produced physical evidence that would fool thousands of learned people in the future into concluding it all happened natually over the course of billions of years?

Of course, I like how you tossed in the word 'specifically' so many times, as if there is this grand precision to it all.

The cytochrome c protein in humans differs from that in tuna by nearly 50% of the amino acids in its sequence, yet both proteins do the same job and do it well.
Is that the 'specificity' you are talking about - 50% variation in sequence?

And what about the 'code' itself - 64 possible combinationxs for only 20 amino acids. Some amino acids coded for by a single codon, some mby as many as six.
What is the 'purpose' in that?  What is the evidence that this haphazard code is the result of a super intelligence?

So why should we allow for your assumptions over mine in the absence of evidence?

Because despite your claims, there IS at least some evidence that natural processes can do the things you claim they cannot, while there is ZERO evidence for your Sky God story.

Can you present anything more than assertions?

Can you?


Yes, and I've done so, but you folks seem to prefer toignore those posts.  Funny, that.

I noticeds that you decided to moit this question:

How was the enormity calculated?
Recall that YOU had claimed that there was an "enormous possibility" that intelligence was behind it all.
Where is the evidence for this enormity?
ID IS a pseudoscience.  It has nothing to do with definitions.  

It has everything to do with the revised definition of ‘science’ that allows for only ‘natural explanations’ which presupposes that only natural explanations are responsible.

Great - so how, exactly, do we do anything that would be recognized as science with the assumption that supernatural entities - who, by definition, do not fall under the norms of physical reality - could be behind what we see?

By defining supernatural/intelligent causes out of the equation, evolutionists then define ID as pseudoscience because it is not a ‘natural explanation.’ It is all very disingenuous.

From my own perspective, that is not how I concluded that ID is pseudoscience.  IN fact, my conclusion is based on the antics of those involved in ID, and it hasnothing to do with definitions or biases.
My conclusion is based on the fact that ID advocates:

1. Generally do not actually do any research.
Far and away the most common ID advocate 'science' consists of taking the publications of real researchers and misrepresenting it, nitpicking it, distoerting it, dismissing it, etc.
Those rare birds that do (Axe, etc.) tend to produce at best ambiguous results which they then spin - on blogs and in DI 'press releases' - into pro-ID 'science,' while on closer inspection, one sees that their work is hardly supportive of ID.  Look at the hyperbole surrounding the Behe and Snokes papwer a few years ago, in which they claim that evolution could not do what Richard Lenski's experiments showed it could...  
Then there is Wells' big Rivista joke - he publishes apaper that the DI labelled as 'research' - yet the paper itself offers nothing more than a silly hypothesis about how because centrioles look sort of like turbines, that they really ARE turbines , and thus produce a force.  Problem is, this idea had already been tested and refuted a couple years earlier.
Poor ID...

2. ID advocates rely nearly exclusively on public relations gimmicks and dshonest historical revisionism to gain sympathy.

They got the scientific endeavor pretty much backward - you do the science FIRST, THEN announce your findings.  The DI runs to the press, declares they've got science, then when asked to present it, cry that they are discriminated against, so there really is notr science after all.

3. They lie. They embellish.  They wildly extrapolate.  
How many times do we read that some 'scientist' who advocates ID is the 'top in their field', a 'world renowned expert', a 'top scientist'?  And when youlook into these claims, how oftwen do you find that the 'top' ID scientists are really nobodies, or are in totally unrelated field, or are not even scientists at all?

Why did the DI refer to the "Yale ID Meeting" a few years ago?  Yes, it was an ID meeting, yes it was at Yale, but it was at Yale only insofar as a chapter of the Campus Crusade for Christ had RENTED a lecture hall in which to hold the meeting.

And what about the "Princeton Office" of the ISCID?  The 'office' which just happened to be the size of a rented post office box in Princeton, NJ?


What about the failures of Dembski's "explanatory filter" - how it was claimed ot generate no false positives or negatives, then was shown to do both?

And so on...


ID 'scientists' have done even less than creation scientsts.  

You are assuming that ID scientists exist outside of ‘science’ but they live and work along with evolutionists in laboratories and in many cases you do not know who they are.

And yet they cannot seem to produce anything premised on their 'science.'
Behe - there is a guy with an up and running, funded laboratory who easily could have conducted ID-based research.

Take a look at his scientific output since he wrote DBB - it has dropped off to nothing.

It is your assumption that they are random hicks in the public and outside of science that is leading you astray.

No, I know who they are.  I've seen the lists.  
Have you ever heard of PSCID?

It is an oline ID jounral established in, I think it was 1999 or therabouts.  A multi-disciplinary ID journal, originally set up to be published every month.  The first few issues contained the usuual ID boilerplate - some re-worked yet already existent essays by Denton, Meyer, etc.  Then it came out every other month.  Then twice a year.  It has not been published at all for over 3 years now.

If ID is such a fruitful concept for scientific research, why can they not even publish articles in their won multidiosciplinary jouirnal?

Sorry Lester - I think it is you who are making assumptions about what I know.

Please tell us what about ID makes it science.
Life was either created or it evolved. You cannot arbitrarily assume one or the other. It is a philosophical bias and thus not objective.

And that is why a religio-political movement that relies primarily on press releases and disinformation and coopting explicitly religious arguments is 'science'???


So, is positoing "an intelliogence musta did it" really an "explanation"?

It is if you look at DNA and protein assembly objectively and don’t randomly throw out one obvious possibility.

So what is the alternative explanation?

Basically, you are employing what I call the argument by awe.  And it isn't really much of an argument.

When I took microbiology back in 1992, the first time I saw an electron micriograph of a T7 bacteriophage, I remember thinking to myslef, "That thing looks man-made."  If you do not know what T7 looks like, I will just say it looks sort of like a tiny lunar lander.
Then later I found out about molecular scales and protein interactions, and realized that that "designed" appearance of T7 is really due to how the proteins interact.  They can only interact so many ways due to their shape and charges, and the proteins that make up the envelope of T7 link up to form what looks like a little geometeric cylinder with legs.
Taking the awe factor out of my thinking did wonders for my ability to understand complex scientific issues.

But wait - what creator are you talking about?  The ID crowd claims that ID is not a religious issue.

It does not matter what creator I am personally talking about. That cannot be determined by science. Nor can the lack of necessity for a creator be randomly decided upon by naturalists.

Of course not.  But who 'randomly' did this?

They are right, it is not a religious issue to determine whether an intelligence was required. It is a practical issue. The argument is purely one worldview versus another using the scientific data common to both.
So what scientific data do you interprtet to indicate the necessity of a Grand Designer?

Please tell us what about ID makes it science.

Science should be a search for truth not forceful dogmatic insistence that naturalistic causes are the only explanation (and the imaginative scenarios that stem from it) in the absence of confirmation of the original premise. It is a bit like saying ‘my house built itself’ and having decided that that is true, we sit around and imagine how that happened until we convince ourselves that it happened this way or that. Pointless enterprise.

That is all well and good, but it did not even attempt to explain what about ID makes it science.
I know that IDcreationists apparently like the reassuring certainty that accompanies the proclamations of thier heroes, but the problem is that if they are wrong, they are COMPLETELY wrong.  

In your humble but biased opinion.

And in your arrogant and biased opinion, if but one pro-ID person who claims scientific credentials claims X, and X is in line with Scriptuire, then you know it is right despite the fact that every other non-pro-ID scientist says otherwise, and looking at the evidence, one sees that the pro-ID proclamation is just wishful thinking and wild extrapolation.

And of course, the street-level creto is too unsophisticated to realize or allow this.

And what about the non-street level creationist?

You mean like Kurt Wise or Todd Wood, who both have doctorates, who both are YECs, and who both have claimed that the actual evidence suporots old earth evolution but they KNOW YECism is right because they are biblical literalists?

And what about the unsophisticated brainwashed street level evo –what is more intelligent about them?

Nothing, excpet that they tend not to rely on charlatans and frauds with books to sell and a Faith to peddle.

Only that they believe people like you without any discriminatory ability whatsoever. For that you allocate them an imaginary intelligence based on your own prejudice.

No, I conclude this.
I know that there are some pretty goofy 'evos' out there.  I tend to avoud them.  But at least they are usually open to corerection and having their misconceptions corrected.  
On another forum, I recently corrected a young evo on the issue of horse evolution.  He thankied me and moved on.
On the other hand, on the same forum, there is a creationist there who has been pushing the 'evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics' for about the tenth time this year, despite having at least three physicist evos explain how he was wrong AND having been linked to AiG's list of arguments not to use which lists the 2LoT among them.
So, tell me what the difference is, since you pretend to know.
I know that the evo will not use an erroneous horse evolution argument again.

I also know that the YEC will keep using the 2LoT argument over and over and over on as many forums as he can.

Why do you think that is?

As there is not reason to 'believe' otherwise, why not?

Remember this is your worldview bias –it is not ‘scientifically’ conceived, it is pure philosophical bias.

Yes, of course it is the case, but I notice you did not even attempt to justify the consideration of your position.

Yes, since these folks are actually doing research and testing hypotheses, while the IDcreationists do nothing but sit on thesidelines playing Monday morning quaretback and throwing stones.

Again, this is the evo garbage that you have believed because you want to. Reality check – many creationists and ID proponents are scientists inside labs doing research and testing hypotheses.


SO WHERE IS THEIR SCIENCE???

This is the second time you've insisted that ID scientists are out there doing stuff.  It remind sme of the claims that YEC is scientific because some of the greatest scientists in history, like Newton, were creationists.  Never mind that these folks did NOTHING to support a YEC position with their work.

This is what you are doing - I am supposed to conclude that ID is scientific because there are some pro-ID scientists out there doing research on things unrelated to ID?

So, is evolution science because there is a pro-evolution scientist out there doing research on diabetes?

It’s like having a Christian in the Soviet Union. Very dangerous and politically incorrect.

Right, I mean it is so like the USSR - no, it is just like NAZI Germany!  Yeah, except that instead of Christians (I thought ID had nothing to do with religion???) being the oppressed minority, they are the overhwelming majority and STILL cry prosecution!

Those are the people that are truelly searching for the truth rather than uncritically accepting the Darwin partyline.

So, AGAIN - WHERE IS THEIR WORK????

Their OWN JOURNAL has not even been published in 3 years!  The DI has something like 4 million a year for 'research' money - yet all they seem able to do is trot out press releases whining about how nobody in academia likes them.

WHERE IS THE SCIENCE???
There is nothing financially rewarding about being anti-establishment but some people prefer the truth.

Right, I forgot.

Those lonely, pressed upon ID scientists are the true Truth seekers out there, toiling away, unresepected, scoffed at.  

So, this 'truth' - can it only be presented in unreviewed vanity press books and on websites where commentary is blocked or heavily censored?
is it always going to be in the form of press releases and angry, smarmy blogs written by lawyers and history and poli-sci professors?


Having been part of the Darwin party, I can truelly say that I am not being rude to you, I understand the blindness that accompanies evolutionary belief –I have been there and my life was a whole lot easier when I tagged the line. When you get to the point that you accept your own philosophical bias and the fact that it is purely philosophical, you may start to awaken to reality.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.    



Ah, the old "I USED to be a Darwinist, then I saw the light" routine...  Yup - you and Stuart Nevins, right?


Sorry, I don't believe that for one second.

I am a "Darwinsit" because unlike the overwhelming majority of creationists, I have actually walked the walk and engaged in primary research, and I have seen the evidence that can only be interpreted one true way, and it doesn't point to a magical skyman blowing on dirt.





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:52 AM on October 12, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.