|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 10/24/2004 : 09:57:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dave W:
2. he posted no arguments specifically for creation, and
3. he posted a clear rebuttal to evolution in his introduction.
I am not going to say that the above is ok, but it is the status queue for arguing creation. Creationists have always taken the position that debunking evolution (and particulars of other areas of science that support evolution) is the argument for creation. When has it ever been otherwise? They honestly feel that “special creation” is the winner by default if they can successfully debunk evolution and old earth geology. From that perspective, Jimi is being honest.
Even the catastrophism and irreducible complexity arguments were designed to refute accepted theory. They use these examples of their “science” in hopes of casting some doubt upon evolution.
Simply put, there is absolutely no science they can refer to that supports “special creation.” All they have in their arsenal are attacks on what science there is, none of which is their own...
They work from the premise that a literal reading of Genesis is absolutely the correct one and, therefore, any science that is in conflict with that interpretation must necessarily be wrong.
We all know this.
I would say that from within the paradigm the yec's operate from, Jimi is being as honest as a creationist can be. He might have done better by using sources other than those of the biggest nut ball in the creation game, but that being said, all the creationist literature follows pretty much the same premise. Defeat evolution and creation wins… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 10:42:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Dave W:
2. he posted no arguments specifically for creation, and
3. he posted a clear rebuttal to evolution in his introduction.
I am not going to say that the above is ok, but it is the status queue for arguing creation.
But what's important, Kil (thanks, Dave, for clearing up the unofficial bold policy), is not that these are bad arguments per se, but that they specifically go against tkster's rules for the debate.
In the rules for this debate, it is clearly stated that:
quote:
Neither Introduction are for rebuttals so any "rebuttal" will be removed. You are to present your argument in favor of your theory; rebuttals will occur next.
In jimi's introduction, however, none of his three arguments actually made the case for creationism (unless we count the notion that anti-evolution = creation, a common creationist tactic you have already noted). In addition, he concludes with an appeal against evolution, which does not seem to be allowed (unless he assumes that "rebuttal" only means to specific arguments, and not to the topic in general-- after all, Peptide never said anything about dogs coming from stones...). |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 12:09:56 [Permalink]
|
What I am suggesting is that attacking evolution is the creationist case, pure and simple. They don't understand that attacking evolution is not making a case for “special creation.”
They operate from a different (faulty) paradigm. From their point of view, they are being honest. They will not understand our objections…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 12:39:24 [Permalink]
|
Hello, mountain_hare, and welcome to the SFN!quote:
I hope I don't upset the mod's by posting a link to another forum...
It doesn't bother this admin, and you're certainly welcome to link to this thread at II. Or this thread, or this thread, or this thread, or this thread, or this thread, or better yet, this thread. Or even this thread. As you can tell, we've been discussing the SkepticTimes and the debate over there quite a bit.quote:
What are the mod's trying to imply, that evolution is a religion?
Yes. In fact, they've stated as much outright. Because - they claim - uniformitarianism relies on assumptions, and science does not (so they say), then evolution therefore requires faith. It is their goal - they say - to drive evolution from science classes as not being science. But they ignore the fact that all of science is built upon assumptions, and so must empty all science classes completely in order to succeed.quote:
Why do I have a funny feeling that Peptide's posts will be 'edited' afterwards?
If they are, we've got a copy of the original, and it won't be touched. And Peptide, I'm sure, still has the truly original file on at least one machine for triple-checking.
R. Wreck wrote:quote:
I wouldn't worry too much about how much jimi is / is not following the rules. His first post in the debate was so pathetic (pathetic even standing on it's own merits, even more so compared to Peptide's) that being a little late or not actually doing what was asked is beside the point.
No, as I said in an earlier post, the fact that jimi is breaking the rules has no bearing on whether or not he's making decent arguments. What it has a bearing on, instead, are the claims made by both tkster and jimi (outside the debate) that they are honest and fair, especially when tkster does things like claim that belief in a "higher power" forces a person to be honest.
Kil wrote:quote:
They honestly feel that “special creation” is the winner by default if they can successfully debunk evolution and old earth geology. From that perspective, Jimi is being honest.
Yes, but that particular "honesty" has itself been debunked for over 30 years - before those kids over there were even born. If they were truly honest with themselves (instead of praising Kent Hovind's peculiar brand of "honesty"), they would have done the incredibly small amount of research required to demonstrate the "anti-evolution is pro-creation" argument is false.
Look, jimi's third argument is vastly different from his first two, in that the first two, if correct (which they're not), would actually be evidence for a young Earth and perhaps special creation. The third - the anti-uniformitarianism argument - has none of that. It is nothing but a "slam" against evolution, and thus completely in violation of the rule which says that jimi should have presented the three best pieces of evidence for creation.
Anyway, even without those violations, there are still two to be answered for, and we're now somewhere around 36 hours from jimi's post time and counting. Even though tkster claims to be involved with athletics, prompt refereeing is apparently not his strong point.
But again, as I said to R. Wreck, none of the rules violations actually matter with regard to possible rebuttals of jimi's post. It's enough to completely dismantle the anti-uniformitarianistic crap and to show that jimi appeals to uniformitarianism (which he says isn't science) in his first two arguments to rip his entire introductory post to shreds.
Cuneiformist wrote:quote:
thanks, Dave, for clearing up the unofficial bold policy
No problem, but let me stress that it is purely unofficial. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 19:36:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
2. Helium in the atmosphere
To begin with, this is the only link that shows up in an internal search on Dr Dino's web-site on the key-word "helium". Scroll down to about middle, or use the browser's "find on this page".
It's a small paragraph with three references. Basically, the content of the paragraph is the condensed version of jimi's whole point #2.
1. Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, April 1985, Page 151,
2. Petersen, Dennis R. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. South Lake Tahoe, Calif.: Christian Equippers International, 1987, page 42.
3. Baker, Sylvia. Bone of Contention. Creation Science Foundation Ltd., Sunnybank, Queensland 4109 Australia: 1990, page 25
quote:
This one might take a little more time to explain, but I'll try to make it brief and easy to understand. One of the dating methods that evolutionists use is called Uranium-Lead dating. In the process of Uranium decaying to lead, Helium is given off.
Helium as a byproduct holds true for all radioactive materials that emit alpha-radiation. Not only from the elements in different stages of decay where Uranium was the original source. But all Alpha radiators. This actually means that the amount of Helium from the Uranium-Lead process only makes up a fraction of the total amount of Helium in the atmosphere.
This is something that Jimi should have known if he had basic knowledge of nuclear physics, and/or knowledge of the Periodic System. I'm pretty sure he would have stated this in his argument (if had he known about it), as it would work for him to show that the amount of helium from the Uranium-Lead process is too low...
quote:
Helium cannot escape the earth's atmosphere and is therefore present from the “beginning of time”.
This is false.
To start with, I'd like to point out that there is dissension in the ranks among creationists about this.
Answers In Genesis writes in the article Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(2):142–147, 1994. that Helium does indeed escape the Earth's atmosphere.
Their article is rather interesting as it describes one of the processes by which the helium escapes. The calculations seem familiar (I think I've read them elsewhere) though they come to the conclusion that the amount of Helium points to Earth being some million years old, not 6000 years. They compare the Helium atom's escape velocity to the hydrogen atom's, which I think is a bit misleading. Molecular hydrogen weighs twice as much as atomic Hydrogen, and only half as much as Helium.
This is by no means the only way for Helium to escape earth's atmosphere. www.TalkOrigins.org talks briefly of ionisation of helium and how ions escape by following the Earth's magnetic field lines.
More info is found here (also Talk Origins).
quote:
If you measure the amount of Helium in the atmosphere, it is MUCH less than what would be expected of a billion year old eart |
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 20:24:27 [Permalink]
|
Good write-up, Mab. Congrats.
Of course, it'd be much easier to just say something like this:"Of the five sentences in section two, the third and fourth assume uniformitarianism to be true, which jimi claims to be faulty in section three. Specifically, jimi claims that the radioactive decay of uranium has always given off helium, and that helium has never escaped the atmosphere. Therefore, per his own logic, jimi's second argument is based upon faulty assumptions, and so his conclusion, the fifth sentence, cannot be trusted." I'm telling ya, guys: jimi's insistence that uniformitarianism is false (and that science never uses assumptions) is a good, strong piece of logical drivel which can be used, like a two-by-four, to destroy jimi's two other arguments. He's basically handed Peptide the ammunition needed to create a devestating rebuttal.
Now, don't get me wrong: I really enjoy reading Mab's and Cuneiformist's remarks on the falsity of points 1 and 2, posted as if jimi had not made point 3. I've learned a few things in the last couple days. I just think that going after jimi's arguments using jimi's own arguments is going to be something which will be difficult (at best) to recover from without jimi conceding up at least one argument (the third).
I mean, if the rebuttal consists of a few paragraphs discussing the failures of jimi's 3rd argument, and then says something like, "but if it were true, then jimi's own first and second arguments would be just as false as uniformitarianism, since they depend upon it - and if my opponent chooses to rebut my [Peptide's] evidences by claiming they're all based upon uniformitarianism, he only further condemns his own first two arguments," the only way to continue to assert the truth of all three points is to ignore the rebuttal in its entirety.
I believe that most people, even creationists, would see that particular tactic to be equivalent to "winning" a debate by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalalala!" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 20:38:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Good write-up, Mab. Congrats.
Of course, it'd be much easier to just say something like this:"Of the five sentences in section two, the third and fourth assume uniformitarianism to be true, which jimi claims to be faulty in section three. Specifically, jimi claims that the radioactive decay of uranium has always given off helium, and that helium has never escaped the atmosphere. Therefore, per his own logic, jimi's second argument is based upon faulty assumptions, and so his conclusion, the fifth sentence, cannot be trusted." I'm telling ya, guys: jimi's insistence that uniformitarianism is false (and that science never uses assumptions) is a good, strong piece of logical drivel which can be used, like a two-by-four, to destroy jimi's two other arguments. He's basically handed Peptide the ammunition needed to create a devestating rebuttal.
Holy shit-- you're totally right! Jimi can only say that we should expect such-and-such about helium in the atmosphere if we can make assumptions about the rates of radioactive decay! But since jimi argues elsewhere that this is false, his arguments #1 and #2 are invalid!
Peptide! Where are you, man! You've got work to do (albeit virtually handed on a platter)-- let us know what you're thinking! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 20:43:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
What I am suggesting is that attacking evolution is the creationist case, pure and simple. They don't understand that attacking evolution is not making a case for “special creation.”
They operate from a different (faulty) paradigm. From their point of view, they are being honest. They will not understand our objections…
You're right, Kil. I guess I am (again!) having trouble grasping the intellecual bankruptcy that comes with creationism. Virtually all creaionist arguments are nothing more than overt or veiled attacks directed at evolution. They assume that creation is the only alternative. But of course life's diversity on earth could just as easily have been part of an alien seeding project, or, as was revealed to me in a dream, the work of the Magical Pink Unicorn (peace be upon his horn).
I anxiously await the anouncement of this debate's "winner"! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 21:36:46 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist wrote:quote:
Holy shit-- you're totally right!
Well, crap, Cune. You've just shown how lousy my communication skills have been on this subject. An epiphany after three pages is not a sign that I've been explaining my position well. I am, of course, glad that you've "seen the light" about what jimi's logical suicide, but sad that it took me so long to lay it out in such a clear manner.
On the other hand...quote:
Peptide! Where are you, man! You've got work to do (albeit virtually handed on a platter)-- let us know what you're thinking!
One of the things I've been trying to do is avoid even the appearance of writing Peptide's rebuttal for him. I screwed up in that last post, but I felt the need to give a clear example. In doing so, I may have actually made Peptide's job more difficult.
Back to an earlier statement of yours:quote:
But since jimi argues elsewhere that this is false, his arguments #1 and #2 are invalid!
Right. If (and only if) Peptide goes this route, jimi's in a world of hurt. He can save his first two arguments by acknowledging that his third is crap, or save the third by ditching the first two, or... he can "save" all three by just ignoring the public airing of his inconsistency and hoping that none of his friends on SkepticTimes notices, either.
But that's as far as the third option goes: nobody who lacks an emotional investment in seeing jimi prevail will care enough to ignore the hypocrisy inherent in his debate intro, especially after it's pointed out for all to see.
Of course, if he goes ahead and allows his first two arguments to die to save the third, he'll also be required to acknowledge that none of the arguments he presented actually constitute positive evidence for creation. The first two are invalid, and the last is only a reason (so says he) to remove evolution from science classes. In which case, tkster should do the moral thing, abide by his own rules, and delete jimi's introduction entirely as being a complete failure to present the creationist theory.
It would make more sense, therefore, for jimi to admit the anti-uniformitarianism thing is crap, since that saves his first two arguments. But, unfortunately for him, it also means he won't be able to simply say "uniformitarianism, uniformitarianism, uniformitarianism, thank you" in his rebuttal and walk away happy.
Of course, all this assumes that tkster and jimi are good Christians who will pay attention to the lessons of God, and be fair, honest and respectful in their dealings with others. And, of course, given Kil's premise that all anti-evolution arguments are thought of by these people as pro-creation arguments, jimi's broken another of tkster's rules by presenting more than "only three" arguments in his conclusion, both with the "test of time" nonsense and the mistakes regarding Occam's Razor. This, depending on how one counts it, brings the total violations by jimi to either three or five, still without comment by the debate moderator. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 22:29:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You've just shown how lousy my communication skills have been on this subject. An epiphany after three pages is not a sign that I've been explaining my position well. I am, of course, glad that you've "seen the light" about what jimi's logical suicide, but sad that it took me so long to lay it out in such a clear manner.
No, Dave, the fault lies with me. I was so focused on the first arguement-- one where I have a vested interest and therfore struggled to see how one could have troubles with basic archaeological tenents-- than the second, about helium, slipped my mind. But once it was really brought to my attention, it all made sense.
And true, we don't want to give tkster any room to cause trouble by "writing" Peptide's answers. Still, these are our own observations and I think we should be allowed to comment without the threat of being kicked off, which seems to be the case over at Skeptic Times.
Peptide, of course, is free to think and write what he wants. In his first posts he seemed to do pretty well by himself, so there's little reason to think that he needs us for ideas regarding his rebuttal. I'm just anxious to read what he's going to write! |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
mountain_hare
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 02:13:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It doesn't bother this admin, and you're certainly welcome to link to this thread at II.
Done! And I've issued a call to the troops (well, I've invited them to post arguments here if they want).
Also, I have a few small gripes about Peptide's post.
Ok, it was fact filled, and is far superior to Jimi's.
However, there are two small problems.
1. Perhaps a bit too long and technical. We aren't aiming to convince the opponent, we are aiming to convince laymen. Long posts tend to lose interest and attention, and technical terms sound like *bzzzzt* to any normal reader.
2. Perhaps Peptide could have slipped into his nylon bug argument (excellent choice, by the way), that not only can new information be reproduced, but entire genes and chromosomes can duplicate and suffer from point mutations.
3. I think that Peptide should take the offensive. He may do a brilliant job at defending evolution, but Creationism will come away unscathed. Bystanders will say "Wow, not one argument against Creationism. It must be pretty solid".
Peptide should clearly state that Creationism does NOT predict the evidence for evolution that he has provided. In fact, Creationism predicts that these things should not exist. He should also try to slip in a few questions which Creationists might find difficult to answer.
Here are some possible questions: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html
I understand that it is three arguments per post, but perhaps you could slip it in, and pretend that it is part of one whole argument? |
"This may sound really off the wall, but listen to me. You've got to believe me. I've not gone crazy, and I'm not fooling around. At first I thought I was losing my mind. But now I know I'm not. It's not me. The scientific community. It's being invaded by Creationism. Someone's ignorant delusions come to life. Little by little, the
invasion is spreading. Trying to swallow up everything in ignorance."
The words of Dr. Harry to the disbelieving scientific community, who were amazed that such idiotic ideals as "Creationism" would ever be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
mountain_hare
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 02:32:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
However, there are two small problems.
OOPS! I meant three.
There are three types of people... those who can count, and those who can't! :P |
"This may sound really off the wall, but listen to me. You've got to believe me. I've not gone crazy, and I'm not fooling around. At first I thought I was losing my mind. But now I know I'm not. It's not me. The scientific community. It's being invaded by Creationism. Someone's ignorant delusions come to life. Little by little, the
invasion is spreading. Trying to swallow up everything in ignorance."
The words of Dr. Harry to the disbelieving scientific community, who were amazed that such idiotic ideals as "Creationism" would ever be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 06:51:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I believe the rules only say 3 arguements for the first post, but I'm also fairly sure that it would be against the rules (or at least the purpose of a debate) to rebute things which Jimi hasn't touched on. I would therefore strongly advise against such.
Right, Ricky. The rules (given here) clearly state:
quote:
1. Evolutionist Introduction: the evolutionists will present only three of their best arguments for evolution.
2. Creationist Introduction: the Creationist will present only three of their best arguments for Creation.
3. Evolutionist Rebuttal
4. Creationist Rebuttal
. . .
Neither Introduction are for rebuttals so any "rebuttal" will be removed. You are to present your argument in favor of your theory; rebuttals will occur next.
Thus, "attacking" creation is technically allowed only in the rebuttal phase, due later this week. (This, even though jimi's post included a rant (albeit based on a straw man) against eolvution-- we'll see if tkster will actual enforce his own rule and have jimi's attack against evolution removed...)
|
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 10/25/2004 06:52:21 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
