|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2010 : 08:22:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Well i think i can supply some evidence that evolution could not have happened but no i cannot prove God, nor that he created the world. I have never said i could. |
Your post contained nothing that said that evolution could not happen.
I never implied that you should supply any evidence for god. I merely said that it is ALWAYS a possibility that god did what science claims that natural processes did. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 09:33:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
But evidence proves that all these assumption are fraught with error. It is well know that argon gas does intrude into igneous rock and skew dates in the most popular K-Ar dating method. In fact all the parent and daughter elements are water soluble and are known to leach into and out of igneous rocks thus potentially skewing the dates derived from their ratios. |
There is always the possibility that there are some flaws in the assumptions. In the case of K-Ar dating, one can control for these by, for example, checking the 40Ar/36Ar ratio. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 10:34:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
I love this, not because stupider things haven't been said here, but because Matt claims to have been arguing against evolution for the last 25 years and, based on the above quote, hasn't learned a thing about science in all of that time. Hell, not even Henry Morris, or Duan Gish, or Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind would have said anything that dumb. |
Actually, thinking about this some, there are a lot of subtleties involved in what makes a theory the ne plus ultra of science. Most people think science is just a pile of facts, completely neglecting the explanations (theories) that tie those facts together in fantastically interesting ways. Morris, Gish, Ham and Hovind have all made the "evolution is just a theory" mistake, which largely implies the same thing as what matt here has said.
|
Yeah. Point taken. Only I doubt that Gish actually said "evolution is only a theory" because he attacked evolution for being unfalsifiable which actually demonstrates some grasp of the scientific method. He had a grasp of what science is, even though he lied about the evidence for evolution regularly, arguing that evolution is not a theory. But then, he is the only one of the group of idiots that I mentioned who actually has a degree in science. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 10:49:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Welp, we have seen creationists, and we have seen creationists. But this is my favorite quote from any creationist who ever graced these forums.
Matt:
Science and proof absolutely go together otherwise the end result is a theory and not a science. |
I love this, not because stupider things haven't been said here, but because Matt claims to have been arguing against evolution for the last 25 years and, based on the above quote, hasn't learned a thing about science in all of that time. Hell, not even Henry Morris, or Duan Gish, or Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind would have said anything that dumb. And that's saying something. Now he claims to have a degree in theology but he doesn't know what is actually in Genesis, or the bible for that matter, but is willing to argue a point that is available to anyone who can read!
Massive fail, Matt. You came here with both barrels blazing. Unfortunately, all you have there is a pop gun...
|
I think a nomination to Fundies Say The Darndest Things is in order. This particular ejaculation of drek should be shared and immortalized. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 10:52:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Yeah. Point taken. Only I doubt that Gish actually said "evolution is only a theory" because he attacked evolution for being unfalsifiable which actually demonstrates some grasp of the scientific method. He had a grasp of what science is, even though he lied about the evidence for evolution regularly, arguing that evolution is not a theory. But then, he is the only one of that group of idiots that I mentioned who actually has a degree in science. |
Yeah, but I don't credit creationists - even those with science degrees - with being consistent in their views about science.
Apparently, Ian Plimer (who is now an AGW denier) offered a pair of bare wires to Gish during a debate in 1988, since electricity is "only a theory," too. This, unfortunately, clogs up the Google results when looking for instances of Gish himself saying "only a theory" in regard to evolution. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 11:12:08 [Permalink]
|
Matt, like many creationists, understands that "a magic man magicked everything into existence using magic" can never be supported with evidence. So instead he attacks evolution. Since he cannot support his position, he needs to cast doubt upon his opponents position. If he can make evolution seem as ridiculous and fantastical as a bronze age fairy tale, then neither is better than the other and both require a leap of faith. Unfortunately for him, evolution is supported by mountains of evidence. While absolute proof is impossible, evolution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The doubts he is attempting to introduce are based on misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and falsehoods.
Matt, you must understand that brainwashed cultists like yourself have no hope of convincing those of us who actually understand the evidence. You were duped because of your deep ignorance and need to believe in a magical fairytale. Intelligent adults simply can't be swayed by the simplistic lies you repeat. You can either decide to truly education yourself on this topic--by reading actual science books and not creationist propagandist distortions--or you can return to your little insulated bubble of like-minded cultists who will continue to reinforce your distorted vision of reality. But we here have a commitment to truth. We follow the evidence. We don't distort the evidence to support a predetermined conclusion. Until you decide to consider all of the evidence honestly and without bias, you will remain a puppet of the professional liars who make a living by selling you a fantasy you so desperately want to be real.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 12:43:38 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Yeah, but I don't credit creationists - even those with science degrees - with being consistent in their views about science. |
Gish most certainly was inconsistent in his discussions about evolution and contradicted himself often.
Here is an excerpt from a back and forth that Richard Trott had with Duane Gish over Trott's review of Gish's presentation at Rutgers way back in 1994. Of course, like Matt, nothing much has changed in their arguments since then, so the material is still relevant. What I have quoted comes from Trott’s rebuttal
to Gish's first and only rebuttal to Trott's review.
The full review with rebuttals can be found here at:
Duane Gish and Creationism
Richard Trott Critiques Duane Gish's Presentation
For the sake of clarity, I have put Trott’s comments in italics.
Did Gish Contradict Himself?
GISH: I have been sent a copy of the article "Lying for Jesus: Duane Gish and Creationism at Rutgers" by Richard Trott. The very title of the article was inflammatory and reveals the extreme bias of the author.
Gish does not consider the possibility that the title was inspired by the demonstrably deceptive nature of his presentation.
GISH: I wish to respond to a few of Trott's assertions. He stated that I had contradicted myself "numerous times." He then proceeded to give one alleged example, . . .
I gave two examples, not one. Specifically:
1) Gish claimed that evolution was unfalsifiable, but he also claimed to have falsified evolution.
2) Gish first stated that creationism was not scientific, but he also claimed that it was scientific.
Gish claims that the second of these is an inaccurate paraphrase of what he said. However, the correction that he insists upon does nothing to remove the contradiction, as we shall see.
GISH: . . . misquoting me in doing so.
I did not quote Gish in the passage to which he is referring, so I could not have possibly misquoted him. I will choose to be charitable, however, and assume that Gish really meant to say that I misrepresented him, rather than misquoted him. More on this next.
GISH: He states, "Gish stated that neither evolution nor creationism is scientific since, among other things, neither is falsifiable. Gish proceeded to spend the remainder of his lecture attempting to falsify evolution." What I actually said was that neither evolution nor creation is a *scientific* *theory*, that no theory on origins can be a scientific theory, since there were no human witnesses to the origin of the universe, life or even a single living thing.
Gish says that he did not say that evolution is not scientific, but that it is not a scientific theory. I say that if Gish's claim that evolution is untestable and unfalsifiable is true, then evolution is not scientific. However, I will accept, as a matter of courtesy, Gish's minor correction to his statements since he is correct that he never concluded that evolution was not scientific.
But wait a minute! What about the original point? Does this mean that Gish was not self-contradictory? No. Neither contradiction has been successfully addressed by Gish, even with the minor correction in the second one of changing "scientific" to "scientific theory."
1) Early on in his lecture, Gish said, ". . . ultimately, there is no way to falsify evolution theory." Later, he said, ". . . this fact alone disproves the idea of evolution" and, "Well, I think this is one of the examples that totally falsifies Darwinian evolution, or any kind of evolution! I don't care what kind of evolution you're talking about." Well, which is it, Dr. Gish? Is evolution unfalsifiable or totally falsified? Gish fails to address this in his response.
2) In his lecture, Gish said: "And so neither creationism nor evolution is a testable scientific theory. They are theories about history. They are historical sciences." So, in the first sentence, creationism (and evolution) is not a scientific theory. But in the second sentence, it is a theory. And in the third, it is a science. ("Testable" is a redundancy in the first sentence, used by Gish for emphasis. One of the reasons creationism and evolution are not scientific theories according to Gish, is because they are not testable. Its presence in the first sentence does nothing to escape the contradiction.)
In other words, Gish has done an excellent job at distracting the reader from the actual issue, but he has done nothing to resolve the two contradictions in his lecture that I pointed out in my article.
GISH: These events took place in the unobservable past and are not repeatable today. I documented that claim by quoting an article by evolutionary biologists Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch (Nature 214: 352, 1967) who stated explicitly that the theory of evolution is outside of empirical science because no one can think of ways to test it.
None of this has anything to do with what I wrote in my article. I merely pointed out, in the article, that Gish cannot claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable and falsified. Furthermore, Gish cannot claim that creationism is not a scientific theory, but then call it a science and refer to it as a theory. These are contradictions.
GISH: I did state that evolution and creation have scientific characteristics, and can be discussed in scientific terms. Evolution and creation are theories about history, inferences based upon circumstantial evidence.
That's all very nice, but Gish also said other things that night and he contradicted himself as noted above.
GISH: I then proceeded to describe the circumstantial evidence from biology, the fossil record, thermodynamics, and probability laws which I maintain provides powerful positive support for creation.
The only reason Gish says he was able to provide any "positive support for creation" is because, as far as he is concerned, evidence against evolution is evidence for creation. In truth, virtually no positive evidence for creationism was presented the entire evening. Instead, Gish presented alleged problems with evolution.
In any event, it should be clear to anyone who has not allowed creationist dogma to completely obliterate any traces of their logical thinking skills that Gish contradicted himself. |
I recommend reading the whole review and the rebuttals. And keep in mind that Gish is one of Matt's sources, whether he knows it or not because Gish along with Henry Morris pretty much came up with “scientific creationism” all those years ago in order to debunk evolution.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 13:38:49 [Permalink]
|
Matt, do you really think we can't tell the difference between what you write and what you copy and paste? It's obvious. It's also obvious that you either don't read or don't understand much of what you do copy. And what you write yourself is pretty half-assed. You still haven't addressed how what you posted regarding the 2nd law refuted your own argument. You've just stuck your fingers in your ears. It's obvious that you have no grasp of what science actually is, or what a scientific theory is based on what you have written here.
You've ignored Dude on the topic of ERVs. Why is that, anyway? Could it be that none of you creationist resources understand the concept? Could it be that you can't find where AIG or some other bunch of clowns has addressed the topic? At this point, I certainly don't expect you to do any serious research yourself.
So go ahead, ignore me like you ignore evidence and logic. Ignorance seems to be your strong suit anyway.
By the way, I don't know where you got your degree in theology, but after Dave had to school you on the first chapter of the book you're supposedly an expert in, you may want to inquire about getting your $29.95 back. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 14:05:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Dr Mabuse, no im not intellectually impaired. Science and proof absolutely go together otherwise the end result is a theory and not a science. |
Of course you are. Otherwise, you wouldn't have confused a scientific theory with conjecture or hypothesis.
As soon as we start talking science, the word "theory" changes its meaning from the colloquial "I'm just making shit up to explain what just happened" to a well founded "we have overwhelming evidence to show this is what really happened".
| Take for example, what gos up must come down. Do you think you could prove this theory? |
No, it's shit you just made up.
To call it a theory, you'll need to have plenty of evidence this always happen, and preferably if you can formulate in more detain the happening things going up and coming down. Something like: "there is always an acceleration toward the ground acting on any object. That's the explanation to why all things going up comes down again".
Also, you'll need to leave room for falsification: If you throw something up, which does not come down again, you need to be able to say "this theory is wrong, we need to revise our theory".
| If you cant than your intellecually impaired. |
than? (to start with...)
| Evolutionists have no proof and this is why you said what u did. More examples are hydrogen is explosive, argon isnt. |
Hydrogen gas isn't explosive until you mix it properly with something it can react with, like chlorine gas or oxygen.
No, we can't prove it, because nature doesn't work as you think it works. Just because you have a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas does not make it explosive, it needs to be mixed in the right interval of proportion to become explosive. The world isn't as black-or-white, binary right-or-wrong, true-or-false as you think it is. That's why scientists doesn't use the word "proof" other than in mathematics and alcohol (and not even in alcohol anymore, since it's an outdated obsolete term).
You're exposing your simplistic view of science, and further convince us that you have nothing to teach us about it.
Quoting from the Institute for Creational Research is pathetic because they are notorious liars. You show yourself even more pathetic by trying to hide the source from us (as if you really could).
| If we heat something up, it will expand, if we cool stuff down it will shrink. We can all prove these science experiments. |
Then your "proved science" is wrong, because there are materials that behave opposite. And even have mixed characteristics, like water. Liquid water expand when cooled within the temperature range from +4°C down to 0°C.
Can't you see what has happened here? "Proved science" wasn't entirely correct. It only described part of what is real. People discovered that water expands when it's cooled to a certain point. So our theory have to be modified into "if we cool stuff down most of it will shrink".
That's why we do science: expand our knowledge of the real world.
Obviously not, since I proved you wrong (pun intended).
That's what falsifying a scientific theory is about. Finding flaws and correcting them. With actual evidence.
| but they can be complicated ones too such as internal combustion engines. Knowing the proven laws of air flow, |
The "proven laws" once concluded that the bumblebee couldn't fly. That was because those weren't scientists proclaiming bumblebees couldn't fly.
Do you have any idea how little the inventor of the internal combustion engine knew about "the proven laws of air flow"? The scientific theories behind air flow has been revised a great many number of times in the last 150 years.
| electrical timing and expansion of substance due to heat we can make an engine. |
Are you sure you're not confusing science and engineering?
| The engine is the proof of the science discovered beforehand. |
If that was true, then the internal combustion engine should have been perfected when it was first invented.
However, it wasn't. Knowledge about the different physical properties of the material involved to make an engine, and it's fuel and components, have been discovered as we went along. Leading to better understanding of how stuff works. Engines have evolved as our knowledge expanded throughout the years.
| There is no such proof for evolution... |
...because scientists aren't involved in "proofing" scientific theories.
I don't know how else to explain this to you. Scientific knowledge changes as more and more pieces of knowledge is discovered and organized, and outdated knowledge is revised as new evidence comes in.
| and if it were true it would have been obvious millenias ago and religion would never have gotten off the ground. |
That's just silly.
Millenias ago, people weren't digging deep into the rocks in search of ancient ancestors, and they didn't have a written language to document it. They didn't have the tools for today's advanced archeology. It was less than 150 years ago since the discovery of the nucleic acid, and less than 100 years ago since the discovery that it is the vehicle for hereditary traits.
But you're right in one thing: Religion should never have gotten off the ground.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2010 : 14:34:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
1. The original concentration of the parent isotope.
2. The concentration of the daughter element or isotope
3. The beta decay rate
|
Some of the isotopes used in radiometric dating doesn't have beta decays. What do you do then? How do you solve this conundrum?
Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts. Life Itself (1981) p.153
Richard Dawkins |
Once again, Richard Dawkins didn't write anything in your post. Which means you're bearing false witness about who wrote it. In short, you're a friggin' liar.
Make amends, or Jesus will surely be pissed off at you. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2010 : 14:43:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Massive fail, Matt. You came here with both barrels blazing. Unfortunately, all you have there is a pop gun...
|
LMFAO
 |
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 14:56:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
I think a nomination to Fundies Say The Darndest Things is in order. This particular ejaculation of drek should be shared and immortalized.
|
Done!
|
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. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 21:17:20 [Permalink]
|
So this topic is about one evolutionist criticising another for not being sufficiently die-hard. Maybe one of them should branch off and form a "reformed theorum" of evolution and the other could form an "orthodox theory" of evolution and they can bicker until the end of days about semantics.
It's somewhat a cliché that "even scientists don't agree with each-other", but when they can't even agree on what the definition of evolution is and the debate becomes more high profile than the issue itself, it hardly represents a united front against the growing anti-evolution movement. |
 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 21:31:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by R.Wreck
I think a nomination to Fundies Say The Darndest Things is in order. This particular ejaculation of drek should be shared and immortalized.
|
Done!
|
Thanks Mab. I hope the sane denizens of the planet get a few chuckles out of Matt's delusions.
And thanks for having the patience to explain in more detail what I tried to convey to Matt. I guess I overestimated his ability to comprehend. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 21:50:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
So this topic is about one evolutionist criticising another for not being sufficiently die-hard. Maybe one of them should branch off and form a "reformed theorum" of evolution and the other could form an "orthodox theory" of evolution and they can bicker until the end of days about semantics. |
The problem is between scientists on the one hand, and a science reporter who doesn't grasp the key concepts of science on the other. It's not semantics, it's a lack of understanding of science by a non-scientist.| It's somewhat a cliché that "even scientists don't agree with each-other", but when they can't even agree on what the definition of evolution is and the debate becomes more high profile than the issue itself, it hardly represents a united front against the growing anti-evolution movement. |
Growing? Where is your evidence for that? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
