|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
 Posted - 07/07/2003 : 02:26:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Darwin, how can you use the laws of science as we know them to disprove creation? The act of creation by an omnipotent and benevolent creator means that forces beyond the ability of man to understand were involved,forces that made matter where none existed, forces that moved and formed planets and stars and placed them in order, forces that made life where none existed. Such forces are beyond our ability to even comprehend. Don't you think an all powerful God is able to place light that He creates where He wants it when He wants it?
What's the point of creating a world in an instant, and then make it look like it has evolved for billions of years? If nothing else, it's deceitful, and that's not an image promoted by any church, is it?
quote:
I can't deny the reality of this power like you can, because I have been healed miraculously and know others who have experience this power also, like a girl friend whose spine was straightened in a moment after prayer and faith in Christ. There are just too many phenomenom like this with no explanation within the realm of science. Jesus taught and proved that "with God, all things are possible."
When my mother-in-law was undergoing treatment for cancer, I prayed to God. I asked him to have mercy upon her, and cure her.
She died a month later. Would you dare comment on that?
quote:
(By the way, missing links are a misnomer.
I see, then Darwins theory is evolving, too.
EXACTLY! Now you're getting it. It's called Science. It works like that.
1) We create a theory to describe a portion of reality.
2) We compare the evidence we find with the predictions that the theory makes.
3) If we find evidence that contradict the theory we have to...- a) modify the theory as it wasn't a good description of reality, or
- b) completely discard the theory (and make a new one) if too much evidence contradicts it.
4) goto point2.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/07/2003 02:33:29 |
 |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 09:59:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Jmcginn, what's the point of quoting empirical data when the suppositions to the reasons that such things occur can be made for both sides of the argument?
You need to explain this in more detail. What suppositions for what reasons? And how can they be applied to an instant creation of all life forms as they are now?
quote:
If the basic presumption of life beginning via chance happenstance can be shown to be virtually impossible by statistical science, and this chance happening is the basic for the theory of evolution, how is it that the explanation of a Creator causing it to happen is not viable?
Few points to this statement:
1. First the basic presumption is that life did not begin via chance happenstance. Chemical reactions are anything but purely random. Chemical reactions are quite deterministic in their outcome. Mix some stuff together in a vial under certain conditions and you get certain products with certain yields. Do it again and you get the same products with roughly the same yields. Change the conditions or the constituents and you get different products and/or yields. Thus the origin of life is anything but completely random.
2. Second the fact that chemical reactions are not random and are deterministic in nature yields your "virtually impossible by statistical science" argument invalid, which assumes such reactions are entirely random. This is a good reason why staticians shouldn't mess in chemistry, something they know very little about.
3. The origin of life is not basic for the theory of evolution and has virtually nothing to do with it. The theory of evolution works no matter where life originated from (space, abiogenesis, creator?, it doesn't care).
4. The explanation of a creator causing life is a viable option, there just happens to be no evidence for it. Until evidence is supplied its just another idea amongst millions that could be conceived with no evidence. The reason abiogenesis gets credit in the scientific community is because there is evidence to support it at least as a possible scenario. There is however no evidence for a creator as a possible scenario.
quote:
I hear people with your belief say "life happened, therefore, evolution must be true" Huh? That's real scientific isn't it?
No it isn't real scientific and you never heard me say that either.
quote:
Evolutionary theory is based on assumptions, assumptions that have yet to be proven in order to make Evolution of the species a "fact".
Evolutionary theory is based on the 12 empirical facts I listed above. If any of those are unproven assumptions, provide evidence that they are. IN OTHER WORDS PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
quote:
It remains a theory with much opposition because of the lack of proof.
Give me the names of 20 biologists from the National Academy of Scientists that oppose evolution. Heck give me the name of 5. Science doesn't deal with "proof", science deals with evidence and testing/experimentation.
quote:
I, for one, am very skeptical of believing such controverted "evidence" in the face of a different explanation that is far more believable.
Please explain in detail how any of my 12 points of evolution are controverted. Again PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Blanket statements likes these with no specifics are as empty as an argument can get.
quote:
Let me propose a far more viable explanation than the current evolutionary theory just off the cuff:
Then we should see in the fossil record in an instant appearance of several 1000 kinds of life forms. We don't. In fact we see over 3 billion years of simple single celled life forms. Then we see a gradual increasing of diversity and slow appearances of animal and plant forms, first in the ocean, then on land. How does the fossil data fit this explanation? How did the millions of different life forms come from several thousand seeded by the aliens? Why do certain species appear so closely related and others more distantly so? How does this fit your explanation?
quote:
Darwin's theory of the evolution of the species was a man's concept of what might have happened.
No, Darwin's theory was based on observation of the diversity within and between species, the ability for species to be modified by a process of selection combined with inherited traits, and a strong dose of biogeography to back up his explanation.
quote:
This concept has been shown to be full of holes with the advancement of knowledge, yet many cling to the idea of species evolving from protozoa to man.
Again another blanket statement with no supporting examples. SUCH STATEMENTS ARE WORTHLESS. EITHER PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Back up your claim or admit you are lying. Your choice.
quote:
Darwin nor anyone else found the missing links that were thought to be out there if his theory is true.
Pure bullshit. Museums are chocked full of fossils some showing clear transitions. Just north of here in Wyoming is a great concentration of primate fossils showing a gradual transition from a form with a 2124 dental formula to a 2123 dental formula. As of my last check almost 5,000 hominid specimens have been found documenting the evolution of apes into bipedal apes into humans. That's thousands for just one lineage. Thousands upon thousands more exist for other lineages as well including whales from terrestrial mammals, amphibians from fish, horses from early mammal ancestors, birds from some sort of reptilian ancestor, shell fish from older shell fish ancestors and so on (not even mentioning plants).
quote:
We argue about a couple that may or may not be, not thousands.
More pure bullshit. There are thousands, and your claims do not change the facts. We h |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 13:46:26 [Permalink]
|
Doomar said with Modifications by me (Highlighted in bold):
quote:
Doomar, what's the point of quoting empirical data when the suppositions to the reasons that such things occur can be made for both sides of the argument? If the basic presumption of life beginning via a Creator can be shown to be virtually impossible by statistical science, and this supernatural creation event is the basic for creationism, how is it that the explanation of a naturalistic cause causing it to happen is not viable? I hear people with your belief say "life happened, therefore, creation must be true" Huh? That's real scientific isn't it? Creationism is based on assumptions, assumptions that have yet to be proven in order to make Creation of the species a "fact". It remains a theory with much opposition because of the lack of proof. I, for one, am very skeptical of believing such controverted "evidence" in the face of a different explanation that is far more believable.
Let me propose a far more viable explanation than the current creationism just off the cuff: several thousand forms of life existed on earth along with all inanimate stuff. An alien race planted all these life forms on earth and left to see what would become of them. We cannot find their origin as yet, because we haven't developed space travel to distant solar systems. Some of the life forms died off and others thrived....sounds like a pretty good theory to me. Creation of the species was a man's concept of what might have happened. This concept has been shown to be full of holes with the advancement of knowledge, yet many cling to the idea of species being created. Pretty far fetched comic book type stuff. Darwin nor anyone else found the missing links that were thought to be out there if his theory is true. There should have been thousands of these "missing links" in the evolutionary chain. We argue about a couple that may or may not be, not thousands. Let's face it; this mythological theory has about run its course. Why not try to find a better theory to drive a stake in and lay claim to, all you Creationists?
Doomar, I did this as a little test. One of the ways I identify an argument as a bunch of hot air is I see if I can change the key topic of the argument to another key term. If the argument sounds just as valid either way then the argument is a bunch of hot air and arm waving without any meat. Where are the specifics? Where is the data to support your argument? All I see in this entire argument is one unsupported claim about fossils (Blue italics) and some wild unsupported story about aliens seeding life on Earth (Red italics). That's it. All the rest is hot air.
So in two long run on paragraphs you managed to:
1. Tell an unsupported idea about aliens seeding Earth.
2. State an unsupported claim about the fossil record that runs contrary to the real fossil record.
3. Write about a paragraph and half of pure unadulterated bull shit hot air with allot of arm flapping.
I gave 12 points supporting the mechanics of evolution. I didn't give any references yet, because I don't know which of those points you accept and which you reject (so I don't feel like getting references for stuff you already accept). If you have specific objections to any of my points, post them with details and references and I will answer them. Until then please keep the hot air to yourself.
Oh yeah please learn how to make a cohesive argument with supporting evidence.
Edited to add first and last sentence |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 07/07/2003 13:53:20 |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 11:21:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I hear people with your belief say "life happened, therefore, evolution must be true" Huh? That's real scientific isn't it?
That is not a scientific statement. Either you're paraphrasing incorrectly, or you're having this discussion with people who don't understand the theory of evolution.
quote:
Evolutionary theory is based on assumptions, assumptions that have yet to be proven in order to make Evolution of the species a "fact". It remains a theory with much opposition because of the lack of proof. I, for one, am very skeptical of believing such controverted "evidence" in the face of a different explanation that is far more believable.
You need to learn what a scientific theory is. It's an explanatory model based on facts. We have the facts of the fossil record, genetic evidence, direct observation of speciation, etc, etc. It's a fact that evolution happens. The Theory puts all that together to (1) explain how it happens and (2) what the history of it has been.
A scientific theory is put together AFTER the evidence is in. Even then, further evidence is collected to confirm/refute/refine the theory (a theory is never 100% complete).
Unlike in everyday usage of language, a scientific theory is not a guess.
quote:
Let me propose a far more viable explanation than the current evolutionary theory just off the cuff: several thousand forms of life existed on earth along with all inanimate stuff. An alien race planted all these life forms on earth and left to see what would become of them. We cannot find their origin as yet, because we haven't developed space travel to distant solar systems. Some of the life forms died off and others thrived....sounds like a pretty good theory to me.
Now this is not a theory. This is a hypothesis...or a speculation. For starters, there is no evidence of alien races...never mind alien races visiting Earth and setting up a zoo. In order to make this a theory, you would need to find evidence of alien life, find evidence of alien life visiting Earth, find evidence of those aliens depositing life forms, experiment with current life forms & remains of past lifeforms to confirm that it fits the model, verify that there aren't more likely explanations, and then convince the majority of the world's experts in this field that you are correct. More significantly, in order to replace the theory of evolution, your theory would need to explain everything the T.o.E. explains equally well or better.
quote:
This concept has been shown to be full of holes with the advancement of knowledge, yet many cling to the idea of species evolving from protozoa to man.
Actually, with each passing year, more evidence is obtained that continues to support the theory. The majority of the "holes" that creationists trot out are non-supported or non-scientific arguments. Most of which have been debunked long ago but continue to be presented as "new" when new creationists enter the debate and see them for the first time.
quote:
Pretty far fetched comic book type stuff.
Do you seriously think the alien zoo scenario is less comic-book like? Or even the Genesis story?
quote:
Darwin nor anyone else found the missing links that were thought to be out there if his theory is true. There should have been thousands of these "missing links" in the evolutionary chain. We argue about a couple that may or may not be, not thousands.
As already said, "missing link" is an outdated term which makes no sense in the current theory. An evolution is not a linear chain either....more like a vigorously branching bush.
"We" may argue about only a few fossils because creationists tend to focus on homonids...and only the famous specimens from that already small subset of the fossil record. The full fossil record is huge and largely ignored by creationists.
There are many examples of transitional species available for debate. Creationists are just stuck on a smoking gun for the human-ape transition.
quote:
Let's face it; this mythological theory has about run its course.
Hardly. It's growing by leaps and bounds. New technologies are a boon to paleontology (e.g., for finding and analyzing fossils). Biology will be big in the 21st century (biotech, medicine, genetics, etc.). |
| Edited by - Phobos on 07/09/2003 11:29:09 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2003 : 20:24:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Cuneiformist, you'll notice that on the first day of creation, God made light and separated it from darkness. What made that light, do you think? I think it was a huge ball of fire way out in the universe far from earth. The earth had to be rotating as evening and morning occurred on earth, thus making it a "day" as we know it. Heat and light had to be present on earth for plant life to grow and survive on the third day. The fourth day, if one is allowed to read between the lines, God took that huge ball of light and created all the other planets, stars, and our own sun and moon. The fifth day He went on creating animal life (fish and birds). He completed His creation with all animals and finally man, then woman. Just because Moses referred to making the animals out of the dust in chapter two after having made Adam, does not mean that He did it in that order, as you presume. Moses made the order clear in the first chapter and thought you would get it. "19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;" Note that birds are also mentioned in your so called contradiction and they were made on the fifth day, so, please, try not to think Moses was such an idiot that he would contradict his own writing. God brought the animals and birds to Adam to name what they would be called. Then he made woman (Eve)to be Adams helper and mate. This is not a contradiction at all, just a misunderstanding by the unlearned and presumptious. Ask yourself, "Am I standing to close to the tree? Is that why I can't see the forest?"
Sorry for the delay in the reply-- I've been away at a conference in Europe and just returned yesterday.
Now, to some points: your defense of the two Genesis myths is laughable. Have you even read the text in question? It's clear from the second story-- Genesis 2-- that the human male is created first. That is, before plants or animals. Compare Genesis 2:5 with 1:11. And let me get this clear: I have argued that the order of creation is different between Genesis 1 and 2, and to counter this, you cite Genesis 2:19-- a passage where birds come after the human male-- and compare this to the fifth day (Gen 1:24-25), where birds come before man (who arrives on the sixth day). And THIS is your best argument? It's almost comical!
And speaking of learnedness and presumption, what's your Biblical training beyond Sunday School? Do you know Hebrew? Are you familiar with other Near Eastern literary traditions, mythologies and languages? If so, let's talk. If not, go back under your rock and keep your head in the sand.
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2003 : 00:29:17 [Permalink]
|
Posted by Cuneiformist quote:
And speaking of learnedness and presumption, what's your Biblical training beyond Sunday School? Do you know Hebrew? Are you familiar with other Near Eastern literary traditions, mythologies and languages? If so, let's talk. If not, go back under your rock and keep your head in the sand.
Sorry, Cuneiformist, but I have to take exception to mean-spirited comments like this one, even if I am guilty of a few myself. I realize how easy it is to lose patience with someone that cannot see the obvious. However, I respect people like Doomar, simply because they have the courage to return time after time to be served up another dose of humility.
The way I see it, if someone like Doomar ever does grasp the simple concept of science, and the true nature of religion, then he would be, if nothing else, a very tenacious ally. I've also found that many Biblical inerrantists, (if that's a word), cannot hang on to the same level of devotion for more than a couple of years before they begin to really consider the questions they propose to debunk science--Before they begin to actually see the image in the mirror. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2003 : 20:34:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
Sorry, Cuneiformist, but I have to take exception to mean-spirited comments like this one, even if I am guilty of a few myself. I realize how easy it is to lose patience with someone that cannot see the obvious. However, I respect people like Doomar, simply because they have the courage to return time after time to be served up another dose of humility.
I guess I was just a little put off be being told that my arguments were simply "misunderstandings" resulting from the fact that I'm "unlearned". The reality is that I've actually spent some time studying Near Eastern languages, mythology, culture, etc. at the graduate level. Thus, I'd hardly say my position is one of unlearnedness.
That said, you're probably right-- Doomar has no idea who I am or what I do (though 'cuneiformist' may be a clue; people don't use that as a forum ID because it's cool, you know). And plus, I am quite sure that I had probably had one too many beers by the time I'd gotten around to logging on to the internet, and everyone knows that slight drunkeness plus internet forums is a disaster waiting to happen-- almost as bad as drunkeness plus telephones! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
