|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2005 : 11:06:18 [Permalink]
|
Yawn.
'nother Fundie. Move along, people; nothing new here. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 12:06:30 [Permalink]
|
Wow! This has turned into an interesting thread! Anyhow...
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
listen everyone:
I cannot answer every single point that someone makes, I'll never leave the computer!
Hi, pspano58. Yes, sometimes SFN can take more time than you think it will. That's OK-- if there are important points that need to be addressed, the question will probably be asked more than once from more than one person!
quote:
My point is this: Evolution is a theory. Creation is a theory. I believe in the latter. Everything science has to offer only supports my theory, it certainly does not disprove it. The only things that appear to "disprove" it are carbon dating, potassium-argon etc., all of which have been shown to be very unreliable when tested on things that we actually know the age of; yet we are supposed to believe and accept it when we test it on something that we do NOT know the age of. That is not science and it is not logical. I sound like a Vulcan.
Dave and some others tried to address this, though apparently not to your satisfaction. I'll try again here (aware, of course, that it's not likely to change your outlook...). You make a number of points. First:
1) "Evolution is a theory." Yes and no, pspano58. The core definition of evolution-- namely that life has changed over time-- is true. Animals that exist now haven't always existed, and animals that existed in the past don't exist now. (A more scientific definition is here.) The theory part comes in when trying to explain the mechanisms for this. Darwin put forward a theory that has largely stood the test of time, as newer ways to test his theory (e.g. DNA) have continually supported it.
2) "Creation is a theory." Is it? Is there any way to test this theory? A theory should make predictions. Not predictions in the traditional sense-- "In ten years, you'll be working in the greeting cards industry"-- but rather predictions about what evidence will show. For instance, if-- as the ToE says-- humans are closely related to the Great Apes (e.g. chimps and gorillas), their DNA (not known to Darwin) will be very similar. That's a prediction. Indeed, if they descended from a common anscestor, their DNA will even show genetic "scars" in the exact same spots. How did the ToE hold up in its prediction? Well, as our own Peptide explained, pretty well. (I know it's a bit long, but read through Peptide's two posts on the linked page-- it should explain a lot.) In light of this, how can we test Creation in some meaningful way? Is there a way to falsify it? Without such things, it's difficult to say that Creation is a theory.
3)"Everything science has to offer only supports my theory, it certainly does not disprove it. The only things that appear to "disprove" it are carbon dating, potassium-argon etc., all of which have been shown to be very unreliable when tested on things that we actually know the age of." Really?!? First, there's much more than dating techniques that work against a Biblical-literalist arument for life's diversity. But I am concerned about the notion that they are as unreliable as you claim. Can you cite some references? They don't even need to be web pages. I have access to a university library that has just about everything anyone could think of. (And I'm only a short drive to the Library of Congress, which has everything.) I'd like to see how unreliable they are.
Finally, you ask some interesting questions:
quote:
Can someone prove creation is not true?
Let's see-- if you're sure that Creation is true, then let's conduct an experiment or two to test it. If Creation holds up, I'll personally abandon my evolutionist stance and take up Biblical literalism. Just think up two ways to test it (or perhaps some readers here can help out) and we'll do it.
Oh-- one caveat. If Creation fails to hold up, then you have to abandon it and take up evolution!
Up for the task?
quote:
Can someone prove there is no God?
Since the word "god" covers lots of different definitions, I'd say that trying to prove that there isn't one in some absolute sense would be difficult. (And the counter-- can anyone prove that there is a god-- is just as hard if not harder!)
quote:
Can someone prove the bible is not true?
This is a rather broad swath to cover. Sure, certain parts of the Bible aren't true-- either because events related didn't happen as the Bible says, or because the Bible itself contains internal contradictions-- but other parts most certainly are true. And then there's a lot of stuff that we'll just never know. Care to be more specific? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 12:11:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
Yawn.
'nother Fundie. Move along, people; nothing new here.
I know, right? I have seen this song and dance so many times I know it by heart. One thing that is universal with these whackos (besides ignorance) is laziness. Every one of them expect you write a summary of the available evidence for their perusal. "Show my big fat lazy ass one piece of evidence of evolution that I can discard without reading" they all scream.
Well, pspano58, buddy, why don't you make it your mission in life to understand why 99% of all scientists in the world accept the theory of evolution. Pause in your crusade just long enough to realize that if people who are smarter than you, who have studied the evidence for evolution day in and day out, unequivocably accept it; then it is probably a much more convincing argument than you suppose it to be.
I mean, do you really think every scisntist in the world is a freaking idiot? Or evil? Come on, man. You don't believe in evolution because you don't understand it. Maybe it's over your head. That's ok. I'm sure with careful and laborious study you can eveentually come to terms with it.
Until then, stop coming onto websites bitching about things you don't understand. You only show your ignorance, arrogance, stupity and sloth.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 12:48:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can someone prove creation is not true?
Logic fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. I have an invisible pet dragon in my backyard, prove he doesn't exist. See how easy that is?
If "creation" is to be science, there has to be evidence to support it.
quote:
Can someone prove there is no God?
I'm an agnostic, so therefore I am not denying there is a "god." What I know is that there isn't a "god" that's shown himself to me yet.
quote:
Can someone prove the bible is not true?
Easy, where do you want to start?
tk |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 13:59:30 [Permalink]
|
Alright, enough bullshit; let's get down to the nitty-fucking-gritty, here. Evolution is a stone fact! It happens all around us all the time. It has been rigorously tested in the lab and in the field, and verified beyond doubt.
The only theoretcal part about it is the driving mechanisms, and most of these are quite well understood.
No theory has been tested to the extent that the ToE has. Every new fossil find, every new species discovered, every new genetic discovery puts the question to it yet again, and each time it comes out as the best answer available.
Blatherskites like Hovind, Weiland, Sarfati, Gish, Ham, Dembski et al are operating from their own agendas. I think that they know perfectly well that the ToE is correct, but to admit such would topple them from their positions of picayune authority and cost them the following and the purses of the deluded.
They do no science; they conduct no research; they publish no papers other than, incestiously, in house organs, their own and each other's. To them, peer review is is akin to reading the funny papers or post cards from friends.
I find myself reminded of the Piltdown hoax. Much has been made ot it in Creationists circles, but they fail to mention that the artifact was locked away for decades and when the fraud, a rather clumsy fraud actually, was pointed out, it was real scientists that did it, not the creation-shouters. Those, not knowing what to look for, would likely still be claiming that it is a fat-headed ape.
I am further reminded of Archeoraptor. That little number was caught in short order by Dr. Xu Xiu, a Chinese paloentologist, not the "creation scientists" of the cults. But the cults have made much of it even though it was pieced together with two previously unknown species of dromaosaur, and is still a valuable find.
Conclusion: The Creationists are full of shit and will remain so until they actually do some research other than parroting some text inspired by nomadic goatherds and trying to twist the work of others to fit their biased and limited philosophy.
Just thought I'd rant a little. I feel much better now... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 15:21:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
I was defending myself.
No, you were bragging.quote:
This is irrelevant to the point again.
That's why it was just bragging, and not a "defense."quote:
A "be humble" edict??? Have you read the bible?
Sure, and there are lots of times when Jesus taught that the meek would be saved, and the arrogant would burn in a lake of fire. Pride is one of the seven deadly sins. Lesson learned: be humble, as it'll save your immortal soul.quote:
What predictions can you test?
Plenty. For a single example, evolution and common descent predict that we will never find a fossil rabbit in Devonian strata. For another, the theory predicts that we will continue to see changes in alleles in populations over time, and that's precisely what we see today.quote:
What?????????????????????????????
If creationism IS true, you can predict alot, such as the rest of the bible is probably also true. So we best read it.
That's your assumption to begin with. Predicting your premise is uncompelling.quote:
How did "science" arrive at that conclusion?
Irrelevant to your claim. You said that everything in science supports your theory that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, so that must include the fact that the universe is about 15 billion years old. Answer the question: how does it support the 6,000-year-old Earth "theory?"quote:
They used to say it was 10,000 years old, then it was 70,000 years old, then it was 1 billion, 3 billion and now 5 billion. Yet I am supposed to accept today's science at it's word when it has been "wrong" so many times in the past?
You're not supposed to take it at its word, you're supposed to study it for yourself and see why today's scientists have arrived at the conclusions they have. Scientists are not priests.quote:
In 100 years, science will be saying the earth is 10 trillion years old...
If so, I'll gladly eat my hat.quote:
...and yet they will not have any "scientific" data to back it up, just some testing mechanism that they are using at the time which will probably be just as unreliable as the ones used today.
Why don't you demonstrate how today's method of measuring the age of the universe is unreliable. That will show us you're correct.quote:
You mean perfectly good dates which support your theory, therefore they must be good dates.
No, if I'd meant that, I would have said that. Putting wrong words in my mouth just makes you a liar.quote:
I'm not claiming that creation can be "proven" scientifically, but you are claiming that evolution can be proven scientifically.
Irrelevant. You demanded that people disprove creationism and God. It's not our job to do so.quote:
I disagree entirely and am still awaiting proof. All the "evidence" shows alot of things, but it certainly doesn't "prove" macro-evolution.
Well, if you're going to look at things one at a time, of course not. The theory of evolution rests upon the convergence of millions of small pieces of evidence, not one big "eureka!" discovery.quote:
That's their problem. It doesn't mean they are right.
Doesn't mean they're wrong, either. Why don't you demonstrate them to be wrong?quote:
So unless something in the bible can be "proven" it must not be true?
No, I asked for evidence of four-legged grasshoppers, not "proof" of them.quote:
Can you prove that grasshoppers NEVER had 4 legs? No, you can't, therefore the bible MUST be true, based on your logic.
That certainly isn't my logic, it's yours. You're the one asking for a disproof of creationism, and treating the lack thereof as evidence for creation. But that's just simpleminded taunting, and not logic. If you don't have any evidence that grasshoppers ever had four legs, like the Bible says they did, why don't you just admit it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 16:47:04 [Permalink]
|
Let us take a look at the noble grasshopper. It is one of evolution's better efforts.
It has two types of legs, the four in the front and two kickers. The two rear legs are powerful enough to propel the 'hopper a considerable distance. They are also used for defense, as anyone who has used them for fishbait knows.
The other four legs just walk and cling.
quote:
the hindmost pair of legs. The huge extensor muscles of the femur gives the leg great power, and the catapult-like joint allows a fast take-off, making the grasshopper an excellent jumper. The two pairs of front walking legs lack these qualities.
the mouthparts of the grasshopper are very strong because they have to chew up grasses and tough plant parts. Mandibles grind side-to-side, while the labrum (which is like a hard upper lip) and labium chop up and down.
situated beneath the jaws, the palps are long, segmented mouth parts that grasp food.
a series of holes on both sides of the abdomen, which are the external openings of the trachea and are used for breathing.
the middle area of the body, to which the legs and wings attach.
a thin, sound-sensing membrane that is stretched across an air space and is connected to the nervous system. These organs occur in pairs, and in the Orthoptera (grasshoppers and crickets) the location can vary, being found on the legs of some species and the thorax of others.
Taken all in, I wonder if whoever wrote that part of the Bible differentiated between the two types of limbs, perhaps considering the rear a different set of organs all together.
Which would give one an idea of the state of the biological sciences in Biblical days....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 20:59:21 [Permalink]
|
It really sucks to have to try to support a religious belief using science, you have to pervert your religious beliefs and science and then pretend not to notice.
For instance you can't believe in evolution because that would falsify your 7 day bit, but you have to admit 'micro evolution' because it is seen all the time. So you say:
quote:
There has never been and is not now ANY evidence that an amimal such as a dog ever evolved into a totally different kind of animal.
You realize that there is no way that all of the animals that have ever existed could fit on a boat so you say:
quote:
[The ark only] had 2 dog sorts
Now you have just shot yourself in the foot because those 2 'dog sorts' (whatever the hell a 'dog sort' is) had to 'macro evolve' into all of the different canine species, wolves, kit foxes, maned wolves, jackels, and the african wild dog.
Evolution does indeed teach us that the current canine species evolved from a common ancestor, it just says it took many orders of magnitude longer than 4,000 years.
So first you say 'macro evolution' did not occur and then you say it must have occured. You can't have it both ways - at least not logically.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 21:22:46 [Permalink]
|
furshur reminded me of an excellent point: pspano58, you could make history by simply and convincingly defining the Biblical word "kind" in modern biological terms, and then demonstrating that it is not possible for evolutionary forces to act across the boundary you set (that macro-evolution cannot happen).
No other creationist (young-Earth or old) has been able to accomplish this feat to date, but you seem so certain of yourself that I'm sure you've got the answer for which thousands of your compatriots have been looking. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 23:07:20 [Permalink]
|
Furshur,
Biblically, the Ark thing can happen. With racism so well known and how we know it was applied in 19th century America, "animalizing" another human race is quite possible. (i.e. Jew=Man and Gentile=Animal) Only a part of the Earth needs to be flooded to destroy "Man". There's plenty of room for life to continue as is. I know the concept shakes the foundations some, but there it is. |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 00:11:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
Furshur,
Biblically, the Ark thing can happen.
*SNIP*
quote:
Only a part of the Earth needs to be flooded to destroy "Man". There's plenty of room for life to continue as is. I know the concept shakes the foundations some, but there it is.
No part of the earth has been flooded for a whole year, much less be deep enough to float a boat the size of the Ark in the Bible. And there is no evedence of a flood of that size in the gelogical record. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 00:41:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
Biblically, the Ark thing can happen. With racism so well known and how we know it was applied in 19th century America, "animalizing" another human race is quite possible. (i.e. Jew=Man and Gentile=Animal) Only a part of the Earth needs to be flooded to destroy "Man". There's plenty of room for life to continue as is. I know the concept shakes the foundations some, but there it is.
So in Genesis 1, the word 'Earth' refers to the entire planet, but in Genesis 6 through 10 it refers to only the part occupied by Jews, even though all of Genesis was allegedly written by the same person, based upon visions from God?
This idea doesn't "shake the foundations," it stretches your credibility to the breaking point. After all, you're suggesting an inconsistency on someone's part. It's either God or it's Moses. Assuming that an inconsistent God is anathema to you, why then should one believe anything written anywhere in the first five books of the Bible? The author cannot be trusted to use the same word to mean the same thing twice. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 00:41:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
No part of the earth has been flooded for a whole year, much less be deep enough to float a boat the size of the Ark in the Bible.
Well you know I'm on the side of evolution but I think the Mediterranean Sea wasn't always there and it has been more than a year now.
The flood stories go back much further than the Bible and I believe there are similar stories in other mythological accounts far distant from "MessOPotamia" as John Stewart likes to call it. The fact it is common to see flood stories in myths might show some credence to the Bible EXCEPT, since the stories are common, from all parts of the world, some before the 6,000 years whoever it was counted the Bible went back to, and since floods are a common disaster befalling our choice of living near rivers and shorelines, the more logical explanation isn't that the story of Noah supports the Bible as fact, it is that the story of Noah tends to put the Bible in there with the rest of humanities' myths.
Michael Shermer has a great piece in next month's issue of Scientific American that I think fits right into this thread.
March 2005; by Michael Shermer; 1 page(s)quote:
Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 03:33:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well you know I'm on the side of evolution but I think the Mediterranean Sea wasn't always there and it has been more than a year now.
Your right beskeptigal, the Mediterranean did flood into the Mediterranean basen, 5 million years ago. A little far back for the flood to be remembered.
However, I did find reference to a Black Sea flood happening around 6000BC to 5400BC. Again, to far back for the Biblical flood, but it might have started stories about a great flood.
So it looks like my earier statement is wrong, but both of these floods where a flood in. But no receding of the waters happened. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
