|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2007 : 10:20:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Bacteria metabolising nylon so much that they grow hands and feet and walk around. |
Strawman.| Our cells becoming so sickled that we grow wings and fly away? |
Strawman. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 10:43:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Somewhat off topic but it applies to some things that were said earlier in the tread:
In regards to "Supernatural". Coelacanth has argued that things that were once considered supernatural have since been explained by science and are (thus) now considered natural. Obviously.....but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It can be argued that "Supernatural" anything does not exist and never will......which leads to my next argument:
Not only is/are god(s) highly unlikely to exist but I can see no possible evidence that could ever convince me that he(they) do. Try and name any evidence that could not otherwise be explained? I can't think of anything. If a Jesus looking fellow suddenly appeared from thin air and announced that he was indeed Jesus.....would that be evidence of gods existence?.......NO. There would always be a better (even if extremely improbable)natural explanation for the observed phenomenon. Just remember Arthur C Clarks description of a technologically advanced race being indecipherable from magic. Q from from Star Trek (while extremely improbable) would always be a more likely explanation that the existence of a literal god(s).
|
Alright, that was somewhat... subjective.
I see no objective points in that post whatsoever. "Not only is/are god(s) highly unlikely to exist" is based purely on your own understanding and logic and when you say "I can see no possible evidence that could ever convince me that he(they) do" just further proves that point.
But to make it more precise of exactly how subjective it is.
Not only is evolution highly unlikely to have happened but I can see no possible evidence that could ever convince me that it did. Try and name any evidence that could not otherwise be explained? I can't think of anything. If a reptile looking bird suddenly appeared from thin air and it was announced that it was indeed a transitional form.....would that be evidence of evolution?.......NO. There would always be a better (even if not understood) supernatural explanation for the observed phenomenon. Just remember Bill Scott's words on fish to philosopher being a belief because it is still speculative. Angemon from from Digimon (while extremely improbable) would always be a more likely explanation that the evolution of some kind. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 10:59:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Whilst there maybe reason to produce belief in evolution, it fails that rigorous or exact and accurate reasoning to establish that it is true.
|
I think that you are taking a mathematical definition of rigorous proof and trying fit it into scientific theory. This does not work. Again, changing words and meanings of words to prove your conclusion doesn't work.
If not, then it is your opinion that it fails. Unfortunately the vast vast majority of experts in the field do not agree, theists or not. You may call this an argument from authority, but the truth isn't because the experts say so, the experts say so because of the truth.
I think your confusion stems from the half-truth that evolution really is. Some is proven some isn't... It really is amusing to see. It's a common technique to mix truth with falsehood. It's a very effective technique.
|
So now you are saying that some of evolution is false. Please cite. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/30/2007 11:08:41 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 11:02:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Not only is evolution highly unlikely to have happened but I can see no possible evidence that could ever convince me that it did. Try and name any evidence that could not otherwise be explained?
|
Edit: removed, see post below. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/30/2007 11:33:51 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 11:10:26 [Permalink]
|
| I'm just saying that it can fossilise well... and has |
And I agreed and gave an excellent example.
| I know of mutations and how they're supposed to work, but we're yet to see anything but speculation of how they can accumulate to produce supposed change. |
But you didn't open and read the link, did you?
| Yes, something I like to call the "Design Method", it doesn't specifically prove the existence of god, but provides very good reasons for the belief that god does exist. |
And Design Method is, exactly....?
I still have to finish my documentary, but it revolves around things such as
Exterior Symmetry and Interior asymmetry...
Marvel and astronomical aspects of the Big Bang
Trusted testimony, the words of Moses, Christ, Mormon and Mohamed.
Fossil Record and the creatures that didn't exist.
Homology, proof of a common designer and genetics.
And some other stuff... |
Sounds like quite a project. Good luck with that.
| So you're saying lips on jaws have no use? |
Do point out exactly where I said such a thing; otherwise you have nothing but a red herring and a rather clumsey one at that.
Nothing wrong with it in particular, well except the effect it has on you, but it was just a little joke on "foreign media".
|
Ah, I see. The effect can certainly make you puke if you over indulge. I always advise against overindulgence. In anything.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 11:11:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Not only is evolution highly unlikely to have happened but I can see no possible evidence that could ever convince me that it did. Try and name any evidence that could not otherwise be explained?
|
Finally! The "skeptic" is exposed...and it is just "god of the gaps." No more discussion is required.
|
Better read that again.....he was making fun of my "no possible evidence of god(s)" argument  |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 11:33:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Not only is evolution highly unlikely to have happened but I can see no possible evidence that could ever convince me that it did. Try and name any evidence that could not otherwise be explained?
|
Finally! The "skeptic" is exposed...and it is just "god of the gaps." No more discussion is required.
|
Better read that again.....he was making fun of my "no possible evidence of god(s)" argument
|
Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the heads up. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 11:52:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
What can I say? You said that speculation includes the same things that science does, making them identical. Now, you say that's a strawman. I'll chalk this up to your intentional ambiguity, which is becoming rather hostile. |
Which is because there is a lot of speculation in science, a lot of it doesn't make it into being actual science.
My intentional ambiguity has only been in the vague of not answering questions, not in my text. Misunderstanding my texts has only been due to a deficiency on the other part.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Good job dodging my original question. |
Yes, jolly good show indeed.
I hope you new see how irrelevant your original question was.
Originally posted by Dave W.
It is impossible to correctly represent your argument when you are being purposefully ambiguous. |
I wasn't ambiguous in those matters at all. None of this has anything to do with me not answering questions. Your actions exactly resemble those of people I have debated with before. They always automatically label or assume aspects of what I say when I haven't said that. You being the main perpetrator of that crime from the beginning.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Then show me which definition of "speculation" includes "testing." |
Speculation doesn't care much for testing.
You can speculate with or without tests.
Originally posted by Dave W.
I never claimed that you used the word science, and don't know why that would be important to your clarification of what you'd said. |
In that case you simply aren't making any sense.
Perhaps, you misunderstood me yet again.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, I see: now you're substituting the noun "science" for the adjective "scientific" inappropriately. Again: science is not speculation. Whether something is testable in principle is not speculative. Nothing I said has anything to do with speculation. |
Huh? I never said science was speculation. I was referring to parts of science, not all of science.
That's like me saying "Bread is made of wheat" and then you come along and say "That's stupid bread isn't wheat, bread is a mixture of other things too"
I know there are speculative and factual aspects of science, but for now I speak of the speculative ones.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Prove it. |
I am... constantly all the time, without even trying. God isn't changing reality as we know it. If he does though, do let me know. I'd admit hands down that I was wrong.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Describe one. |
What I like to call the design method. I'm making a documentary on it at the moment... it covers many aspects of which we can tell something was designed.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Are you really going to start that sort of insult with me? Apparently you are. |
Apparently I already have.
Originally posted by Dave W.
You are responsible for the strawmen, because you're the one who is intentionally injecting ambiguity into the discussion and then shouting "strawman" when people get you wrong. |
Why are you leaning on this ambiguity thing for support when I clearly wasn't being ambiguous in that respect. The only thing I've been ambiguous about is not stating my evidences for everything, which was so I could take this slowly. My texts however have been very clear.
You can't get more clear than "I was being purposely ambiguous". You'd have to be a numbskull not to realise that there was something particularly straight about that statement.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Says you, but your hostility is quite clear. |
No... that would be your paranoia.
Tis common, I've seen.
Originally posted by Dave W.
What part of "I asked you to describe one" says to you that I'm asking if any had been done? Especially after I explicilty told you that I wasn't asking if experiments had been done. And how did the word "prove" work its way into this? Really, you should be careful of accusing others of not comprehending your posts when you're unable to understand a simple question. |
Careful of telling people what they're doing?
If you feel I got you wrong, just say. At least I'm not assuming things. If you noticed I was asking questions so as to clarify exactly what you meant. Not making assumptions and throwing accusations and strawmen around like you and your friends are doing. People will make mistakes, but they don't have to make strawmen with those mistakes.
Originally posted by Dave W.
You've suggested (twice now) that God is amenable to scientific testing. I'm asking you to describe a possible test for the existence of God. How does that not make sense? |
How do you test if someone exists? That's how it doesn't make sense...
Originally posted by Dave W.
Only if you missed my point, which you did. |
Then make yourself clear next time...
Originally posted by Dave W.
See, you knew what I meant, but you rather than address my point you harp on the silliness of my mistake and then grind it in under your heel. How, again, is this "civilized?" Do you think yourself to be "civilized" simply because you're not calling me names directly? |
I have no idea what you meant, I really thought you believed what you were writing. I'm a literal man, I will take you literally, if your argument is literally flawed I will crush it under my heel and I will dance, for a good period of time too. Do not expect otherwise from me.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Right, now compare that to the science of evolution. |
But that wasn't evidence of God at all.
I think the mistake you're making is thinking that arguments against evolution is arguments for creation and arguments against creation are arguments for evolution, but in fact they could both be false.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh? Name one. |
I'll name 3.
Bible, Torah, Koran
Originally posted by Dave W.
Only if you assume that the designer would re-use parts of the design. That's an unsupportable assumption. |
No... that's a natural aspect of design. Designers tend to reuse parts of design when supporting similar features.
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's precisely my point. |
In that case it was a strawman.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, that's precisely my point. Your arguments, Coelacanth, are very weak. Perhaps due to your purposeful ambiguity. Maybe if you stopped that, we could reach an understanding. As it is, you appear to be doing nothing more than setting yourself up for "persecution." |
My arguments are weak because you wanted to use a strawman?
Is there no limit to the incompetence in debating on this board?
Originally posted by Dave W.
And now the ad hominem dismissals begin again. |
I was speculating and I was talking to Bill, some of your friends made similar statements on your side, you didn't seem to have a problem with that.
This is just your bias speaking.
Originally posted by Dave W.
All entirely speculative ad hominems designed to inflame. The age of "civilized" debate here is over. |
Again, you're clearly biased.
I wasn't using those to debate, therefore they aren't ad hominem. |
| Edited by - Coelacanth on 10/30/2007 12:08:54 |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 11:53:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Coelacanth
I know of mutations and how they're supposed to work, but we're yet to see anything but speculation of how they can accumulate to produce supposed change. |
Speak for yourself. I've certainly seen such evidence. If you haven't, that certainly isn't a problem with the theory itself, and suggesting that the theory is somehow flawed because of your admitted ignorance of the evidence is rather nutty.
|
You've seen evidence?
Wow... this is amazing, I've never seen anyone claim this before. What mutations have you seen that could accumulate to produce the evolution we know of? |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:00:27 [Permalink]
|
| But you didn't open and read the link, did you? |
I've read it, some time before. I actually did do research before I came to my conclusions.
| And Design Method is, exactly....? |
I explained already...
| Sounds like quite a project. Good luck with that. |
Thanks!
| Do point out exactly where I said such a thing; otherwise you have nothing but a red herring and a rather clumsey one at that. |
That wasn't a red herring, it was a rather concise question. I'm not sure what you found misleading about a simple question. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:04:36 [Permalink]
|
I'll name 3.
Bible, Torah, Koran
|
Where is your evidence that these books are anything other than stories recorded by ancient people?
Surely you aren't a hypocrit like Billy. So you MUST have some evidence for your claim of a divine origin for the books you listed.
And when are you going to get around to explaining to us how some specific piece of evidence for evolution is "speculative"?
Your continued refusal is once again noted.
Get back to me when you have more than handwaiving and intentional insults (in an attempt to disrupt the conversation so you don't have to answer the questions posed).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:17:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Where is your evidence that these books are anything other than stories recorded by ancient people?
Surely you aren't a hypocrit like Billy. So you MUST have some evidence for your claim of a divine origin for the books you listed. |
Evidence stands for itself...
So do those books, they are detailed transcripts of history brought by men regarded by many as more than trustworthy.
The evidence of their truth lays in testimony, some weak and some stronger, but we have a more philosophical view of the religions of the world and that they contribute each other.
These books were very much authentic, yet it is unfortunate that some have been altered or tampered with.
In the end, my claim still stands, they are the books of god. Regardless of whether they are still so today.
I know atheists tend to assume the writers were fabricators, liars and/or madmen, but that's a baseless assumption which holds no grounding at all.
Originally posted by Dude
And when are you going to get around to explaining to us how some specific piece of evidence for evolution is "speculative"?
Your continued refusal is once again noted. |
You may want to fill your notebook with those refusals, because reverse psychology isn't going to get you anywhere.
Originally posted by Dude
Get back to me when you have more than handwaiving and intentional insults (in an attempt to disrupt the conversation so you don't have to answer the questions posed). |
Will do, son, will do. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:17:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Originally posted by Siberia
What I don't understand is the almost irrational (or at least baseless) rejection that things can add up to small changes
|
things can add up to small changes, but then what things?
Bacteria metabolising nylon so much that they grow hands and feet and walk around.
Our cells becoming so sickled that we grow wings and fly away?
What changes have we observed do you think can accumulate into larger changes or the evolution myth we know of today?
|
Mm, I don't know. I won't even bother with the nylon bug thing, but let's see about the wing. Now, as I am not a biologist, I may be entirely wrong, and I don't have a problem conceiving a quite reasonable scenario where humans develop wings. Except they may not be like the angels from a certain favorite brand of myth. Maybe they could be actually be deformations of our arms. These, after all, aren't that different from a human arm.
Now, it also depends what you consider a 'wing'. Do you mean an insect like wing? Or a bat-like wing? Or, perhaps, something like some squirrels and lizards have - not wings, per se, but membranes that aid in gliding? It's not inconceivable that such things could happen to a human. After all, polydactyly means growing one - or more! - extra finger(s) or toe(s). That's quite a feat, no? It also happens all the time. I recently heard about a chicken born with four legs. Maybe that chick will never breed. Maybe it will breed. Maybe of those babies will also have four legs. Maybe not. Who is to know? Evolution has no direction and no purpose to fulfill. Maybe if the chicken with four legs survives enough to breed, and from its progeny some - even one - has four legs, too, and that one survives to breed... how long until there's a whole new breed - or, who knows, species - of chicken with four legs? That's just divagation, of course. Maybe that one will be a dead end. Maybe not.
What of, for instance, polycephaly? An animal born with two - or more - heads.
How different is different enough to you? What if, say, a bacteria split but somehow didn't split entirely - so they were a single creature with not one, but two cells? What if they were three? Four? Would you say that's still a bacteria? How many micros would it take to make a macro? We aren't talking 1k years. We're talking millions of years. Lots and lots of critters interacting. Only because you can't see it happening... well, nothing we say will ever convince you otherwise. Whatever. |
"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
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:28:07 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth said:
Evidence stands for itself...
So do those books, they are detailed transcripts of history brought by men regarded by many as more than trustworthy.
The evidence of their truth lays in testimony, some weak and some stronger, but we have a more philosophical view of the religions of the world and that they contribute each other.
These books were very much authentic, yet it is unfortunate that some have been altered or tampered with.
In the end, my claim still stands, they are the books of god. |
I'd ask you to provide some specific examples of that evidence, but your pattern has become clear. You will just grandstand and insist that your position is correct and ignore all requests for evidence and refuse to be engaged in a discussion about specifics.
So, you are nothing but a hypocrit like Billy. Thank you for the clarification.
You accept the word of bronze age desert nomads for a claim to the divinity of your holy book.... but you refuse to accept things like ERVs and the analysis of human chromosome 2 as evidence for common descent.
Unreal.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:29:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Originally posted by Siberia
What I don't understand is the almost irrational (or at least baseless) rejection that things can add up to small changes
|
things can add up to small changes, but then what things?
Bacteria metabolising nylon so much that they grow hands and feet and walk around.
Our cells becoming so sickled that we grow wings and fly away?
What changes have we observed do you think can accumulate into larger changes or the evolution myth we know of today?
|
Mm, I don't know. I won't even bother with the nylon bug thing, but let's see about the wing. Now, as I am not a biologist, I may be entirely wrong, and I don't have a problem conceiving a quite reasonable scenario where humans develop wings. Except they may not be like the angels from a certain favorite brand of myth. Maybe they could be actually be deformations of our arms. These, after all, aren't that different from a human arm.
Now, it also depends what you consider a 'wing'. Do you mean an insect like wing? Or a bat-like wing? Or, perhaps, something like some squirrels and lizards have - not wings, per se, but membranes that aid in gliding? It's not inconceivable that such things could happen to a human. After all, polydactyly means growing one - or more! - extra finger(s) or toe(s). That's quite a feat, no? It also happens all the time. I recently heard about a chicken born with four legs. Maybe that chick will never breed. Maybe it will breed. Maybe of those babies will also have four legs. Maybe not. Who is to know? Evolution has no direction and no purpose to fulfill. Maybe if the chicken with four legs survives enough to breed, and from its progeny some - even one - has four legs, too, and that one survives to breed... how long until there's a whole new breed - or, who knows, species - of chicken with four legs? That's just divagation, of course. Maybe that one will be a dead end. Maybe not.
What of, for instance, polycephaly? An animal born with two - or more - heads.
How different is different enough to you? What if, say, a bacteria split but somehow didn't split entirely - so they were a single creature with not one, but two cells? What if they were three? Four? Would you say that's still a bacteria? How many micros would it take to make a macro? We aren't talking 1k years. We're talking millions of years. Lots and lots of critters interacting. Only because you can't see it happening... well, nothing we say will ever convince you otherwise. Whatever.
|
Different enough is creating a change that would substantiate evolution creating limbs (symmetrically) and then organs and perhaps intelligence too... considering that it came from no intelligence.
You wouldn't need to demonstrate an entire organ evolving, only a mutation that could lead to one and how more would compliment such.
You can make your observations from mutations or even the fossil record. I've searched and I've found none.
Polydactyly is merely recreating something that was already there, evolution isn't even supposed to happen that fast. Check the fish to tetrapod tree for more insight into what I mean. |
| Edited by - Coelacanth on 10/30/2007 12:32:01 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
