Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the rocks speak
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 59 (40040)
05-14-2003 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
05-13-2003 8:38 PM


Re: Evidence
I guess the reason you don;t want to discuss the evidence is that you know that you will lose and that your evidence will be refuted.
And I'm not surprised when I saw the first page of the site. It's for Carl Baugh's "Creation Evidences Museum" and the Paluxy tracks. Even Answers in Genesis don;t think that Baugh or his evidence are reliable.
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis
"Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour."
"‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 8:38 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Fencer
Guest


Message 32 of 59 (40056)
05-14-2003 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by John
05-13-2003 8:52 PM


quote:
Inorganic matter is different from organic matter in what way exactly?
You asked me to posit relevant questions, however, I don't think I could top this hum-dinger from you. Honestly, you can't be serious with this question, or if you are serious, you must be 10 years old or purposely acting like one. If you really don't know the fundamental difference b/n inorganic matter and organic matter, please don't respond to me anymore.
quote:
Many? Would that be 'many' in relation to those that do not accept creationism? Or would that be 'many' as in sort-of a meaningless literary device?
Meaningless to you, just like the distinction b/n inorganic matter and organic matter is meaningless. FYI: there are many accredited universities around the world, and it is hardly a testament to the persuasive power of the evolution argument that so many universities fail at indoctrinating 100% of its graduates. Some of us see a difference b/n organic matter and inorganic matter.
quote:
You seem to feel that numbers of believers is an important factor in determining the truth of a claim, though this is fallacious. Numbers has no real bearing on whether the claim is true.
You seem to have failed to understand/("feel" if you're the touchy-feely kind of guy) the purpose of my example. I merely found it intrigueing that the evolution argument regularly fails to convince people far more educated and accomplished than yourself.
quote:
Now try this. Ask a relevant question.
Like, "in what way exactly is inorganic matter different from organic matter?"
quote:
Say, ask a geologist about the flood.
Do you mean a Ph.D Geologist who has graduated from a major accredited university and believes in evolution? You do require that conjunction, do you not? I just want to be sure. I wouldn't want one of the "others" that slipped through the cracks to think he/she knows anything about geology.
quote:
Or ask an archeaologist about the exodus.
Why would I do that, Mr. Relevance? We were talking about evolution here, not about some irrelevant historical event you believe didn't happen.
quote:
The numbers will fail you.
You are contradicting your self-cited ideology. Anywho...
Unlike you, I don't measure truth by counting the majority beliefs of scientists. I have the uncanny ability to objectively weigh the merits of dissenting opinions and not get all emotional about the fact that alot of people believe in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by John, posted 05-13-2003 8:52 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by wj, posted 05-14-2003 8:51 AM You have not replied
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 3:11 PM You have not replied
 Message 36 by John, posted 05-15-2003 2:08 AM You replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 59 (40060)
05-14-2003 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Fencer
05-14-2003 8:19 AM


From fencer
quote:
If you really don't know the fundamental difference b/n inorganic matter and organic matter, please don't respond to me anymore.
I take it that this is your indirect admission that you are not able to give a direct answer and explain the difference between inorganic and organic matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Fencer, posted 05-14-2003 8:19 AM Fencer has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 34 of 59 (40061)
05-14-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Fencer
05-13-2003 7:58 PM


Hi Fencer,
Sorry to butt in between you and John bashing each other, but I'd like to revisit one of your earlier posts (I've been out of town).
Fencer writes:
Well, I'm not an evo anymore because I've looked at the entire body of evidence in its totality and it compelled me to rethink whether evolution is probable. Therefore, I could no longer be an evolutionist since it was the wrong paradigm.
I don't suppose you'd care to share any one or two bits of evidence that you found compelling enough to cause you to dump the theory of evolution? I'd also be interested in hearing how you went about examining the "totality" of the evidence for evolution - and specifically which parts. This is quite an impressive feat: it's as much as I can do to keep up with one or two journals and the occasional recent book (for instance, I just bought Mayr's "Evolution and the Diversity of Life" - Darwin only knows when I'll actually get around to reading it ).
Non-matter does not create matter, naturalistically speaking, despite your strange belief it does; likewise, inorganic matter does not magically transform into organic matter, but believe this only if you want to remain consistent with science.
I find this kind of a difficult statement to understand. In the first part, you seem to be discussing matter-energy tranformation or nucleosynthesis - subjects more properly in the realm of physics than biology. In the second half, you seem to be arguing against abiogenesis - a subject more properly in the domain of chemistry. I will agree that abiogenesis doesn't happen "magically", but I'll state that there hasn't been any evidence provided to date showing that there is some barrier precludes it happening naturally.
You've seen the same evidence, but you've reached the wrong conclusions. I think the erroneous conclusions are the product of falsely accepting things as evidence for your theory, when in fact it is not evidence at all. I don't really know how to help you in this regard.
Well, of you're really interested in helping readers see how their conclusions are so wrong, you could start by listing the evidence you're talking about. Saying things like, "You've seen the same evidence, but you've reached the wrong conclusions.", doesn't help all that much when we don't know what evidence we've both supposedly looked at. Help me out here. As I requested above, what is the evidence that you say we both examined that proved to be so compellingly anti-evolution on your part?
Many well educated doctors, scientists, and Ph.D's heiling (sic) from every major accredited university in the world reject evolution and embrace creation as the most probable scenario of reality.
Maybe we shouldn't play this game. After all, over 300 "well educated doctors, scientists, and Ph.D's hailing from every major accredited university in the world" named Steve fully embrace the theory of evolution. Interestingly, all the Steves have a directly related specialty (geology, paleontology, biology, ecology etc). Most creationist scientist lists can't make this claim. Better that I simply stipulate to the fact that not all creationists are ignorant, in-bred, illiterate rednecks, and we can move on to something more substantive, right?
Looking forward to your reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Fencer, posted 05-13-2003 7:58 PM Fencer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 05-15-2003 9:29 AM Quetzal has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 59 (40102)
05-14-2003 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Fencer
05-14-2003 8:19 AM


Honestly, you can't be serious with this question, or if you are serious, you must be 10 years old or purposely acting like one.
If you won't believe John doesn't know, believe I don't know. Humor me. What's the difference? At least give an example of organic matter vs. inorganic matter, preferably of similar elemental composition.
I mean, consider this: Is limestone inorganic matter? It's stone, right? But my bones are made of calcium, too. Are my bones inorganic matter? I would argue they're organic.
When I was in chemistry class, the difference between organic and inorganic chemicals had to do with the presence or absence of carbon. In that situation inorganic molecules could become organic through simple chemical reactions. Your definition seems to be at odds with chemistry. I'd like you to address that.
there are many accredited universities around the world, and it is hardly a testament to the persuasive power of the evolution argument that so many universities fail at indoctrinating 100% of its graduates.
Well, unfortunately, when they give you the degree that's no indication you've learned anything.
Some of us see a difference b/n organic matter and inorganic matter.
..where none exists, in the view of chemists. Educated people believe all kinds of things.
Unlike you, I don't measure truth by counting the majority beliefs of scientists.
Then why did you bring up numbers?
The only difference between organic and inorganic matter is where it is found. Organic matter is found in organisms. Inorganic is not. The chemical properties of both are identical. Or perhaps you'd care to explain, using your model of the unbridgable gap between organic and inorganic, chemosynthetic bacteria at sea floor vents? Or bacteria able to digest nylon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Fencer, posted 05-14-2003 8:19 AM Fencer has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 59 (40181)
05-15-2003 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Fencer
05-14-2003 8:19 AM


quote:
You asked me to posit relevant questions, however, I don't think I could top this hum-dinger from you.
So you don't really know what the difference is then. That's what I thought.
quote:
Meaningless to you, just like the distinction b/n inorganic matter and organic matter is meaningless.
So, you've succeeded in not really answering the question, and at the same time highlighted your own ignorance of chemistry. Congrats...
quote:
FYI: there are many accredited universities around the world...
No? Really? Many? That many?
quote:
...and it is hardly a testament to the persuasive power of the evolution argument that so many universities fail at indoctrinating 100% of its graduates.
We are counting those heavy science majors like Art, and Dance, right?
Really, this point is pretty silly. Why would you expect 100% agreement between the graduates on anything? You are talking about thousands of people. Some go in and come out with hang-overs, some come out with an education.
quote:
I merely found it intrigueing that the evolution argument regularly fails to convince people far more educated and accomplished than yourself.
You can't possibly know this to be true. You don't know how educated and accomplished I am or ain't. But the cheap shots really do make me look bad... oh, wait, they make you look bad.
quote:
Like, "in what way exactly is inorganic matter different from organic matter?"
Yes, indeed. Ask a chemist.
quote:
You do require that conjunction, do you not?
No. Not really. Any random sample of trained geologists will do.
quote:
Why would I do that, Mr. Relevance?
Why would you ask a scientist a question pertaining to his or her field?
quote:
We were talking about evolution here, not about some irrelevant historical event you believe didn't happen.
It seemed that we were talking about how many graduates don't believe evolution. I suggest you stick to asking questions within the field of the individual scientist. I imagine that you include all graduates who do not believe evolution-- like the poets and violinists-- yet you object to asking an archeaologist about archeaology?
quote:
You are contradicting your self-cited ideology.
What?
quote:
Unlike you, I don't measure truth by counting the majority beliefs of scientists.
Yet you brought up the numbers game? Curious....
quote:
I have the uncanny ability to objectively weigh the merits of dissenting opinions and not get all emotional about the fact that alot of people believe in God.
Hey, maybe you should contact Prof. Xavier and see if you can't join his team!!!
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Fencer, posted 05-14-2003 8:19 AM Fencer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Fencer, posted 05-15-2003 7:49 AM John has not replied

Fencer
Guest


Message 37 of 59 (40202)
05-15-2003 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by John
05-15-2003 2:08 AM


quote:
I suggest you stick to asking questions within the field of the individual scientist
You suggested I inquire from an archaeologist in order to show me evolution is true? Archaeology is merely the historical study of one species, human beings (according to my dictionary anyway); therefore, you will have do more to explain the relevance of how archaeology proves evolution. I would agree that Archaeology shows human beings to have human ancestors, unless the current assumption is that apes built those grand civilizations, but archaeology has nothing to do with biological evolution and certainly doesn't establish human beings have a common anscestor with a zoo gorilla.
Which simply shows (again) you have some emotional hang-up over the fact that alot of people believe in God, and can hardly control yourself to advertise your heartfelt displeasure of an alleged historical event recorded in a purported religious text, although not in response to any question or relevant line of inquiry within the consideration set of biological evolution.
However, I never did disclose my religious leanings, Mr. Relevance. Accordingly, watching you put forth so much energy into an irrelevant argument is about as entertaining as watching a zoo gorilla making piles with his feces.
quote:
So you don't really know what the difference is then. That's what I thought
I'm glad to see you agree that there is a difference between organic and inorganic matter. What that difference is and why real chemists felt the need to clearly distinguish between what constitutes inorganic matter and organic matter is not the conundrum to me as it is to you. Better that you go back to making feces piles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by John, posted 05-15-2003 2:08 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Karl, posted 05-15-2003 7:54 AM You have not replied
 Message 41 by nator, posted 05-15-2003 9:37 AM You replied
 Message 43 by joz, posted 05-15-2003 11:02 AM You have not replied
 Message 46 by John, posted 05-15-2003 12:16 PM You have not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 59 (40205)
05-15-2003 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Fencer
05-15-2003 7:49 AM


Erm - the difference is surely that organic matter contains carbon. At least, that's what I learnt in organic chemistry.
Not some magic "change" that occurs when matter becomes part of an organism.
Organic matter is found throughout the universe, even inside stars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Fencer, posted 05-15-2003 7:49 AM Fencer has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 59 (40214)
05-15-2003 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
05-13-2003 5:28 PM


quote:
its amazing the huge reaction i get when people start to feel insecure .
It's not a matter of insecurity.
You just assume that we haven't heard these questions of yours (or something very similar) before, because it (seems to be) all brand new to you.
Believe me, Creationist arguments haven't much changed in decades. The questions you are asking have been thoroughly answered, complete with evidence and references to the professional literature, on this board and others many, many times.
quote:
my point was that most evos havent heard the creation evidence i have ,
Did you even read my reply?
MY point is that we HAVE heard the Creationist side.
Not only have we heard it, we probably are better informed about the Creationist arguments than the Creationists who state them, including you.
quote:
because they ask me silly questions when they are losing arguements.
Oh, cut the crap.
How do you figure the evos are losing any arguments? I don't recall you providing much, if any, evidence to support your claims.
That's how scientific arguments are won, dear. With evidence, not with repetition of claims.
quote:
as for your question, i have not taken these courses because your so much more cleverer than me which means i have no right to have an opinion! lol
It isn't a matter of cleverness. I am sure you are clever.
It is a matter of education versus ignorance.
How on earth can you feel intellectually comfortable rejecting practically all of modern Biology without having ever taken a single introductory Biology course, let alone one specifically dealing with Genetics or Evolution or Paleontology?
Ignorance and arrogance so often are found together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2003 5:28 PM mike the wiz has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 59 (40217)
05-15-2003 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Quetzal
05-14-2003 8:56 AM


quote:
After all, over 300 "well educated doctors, scientists, and Ph.D's hailing from every major accredited university in the world" named Steve fully embrace the theory of evolution.
It's also true that one Nobel Prize-winning Harvard Psychology professor believes in alien abductions, too.
Does that mean that alien abductions are true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Quetzal, posted 05-14-2003 8:56 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2003 9:59 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 59 (40219)
05-15-2003 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Fencer
05-15-2003 7:49 AM


quote:
Better that you go back to making feces piles.
Gosh, you are really winning my respect for your well-reasoned arguments and careful citations to the professional literature.
For a new poster (and Creationist), you sure seem to be skilled at staying calm and sticking to discussing the facts rather than making distracting and irrelevant personal attacks.
Most creationists who come here tend to make a lot of those personal attacks in the mistaken belief that they somehow win argments about scientific matters that way.
Makes you kind of chuckle, doesn't it, thos people acting like angry knuckleheads, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Fencer, posted 05-15-2003 7:49 AM Fencer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Fencer, posted 05-15-2003 4:55 PM nator has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 42 of 59 (40223)
05-15-2003 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by nator
05-15-2003 9:29 AM


It's also true that one Nobel Prize-winning Harvard Psychology professor believes in alien abductions, too.
Does that mean that alien abductions are true?
Well, by the standard creationist "argument from lists of PhD's" it apparently does. Who are we to argue with a Nobel Prize winner?
Heheh. C'mon Schraf, don't tell me you haven't heard about the NCSE's famous Project Steve. It's a deliberate parody of the creationist list mania. Get a bunch of high-power PhD's, MD's and others of that ilk to sign off on a statement of support for the theory of evolution (in this case, they all had to be named Steve, Steven, Stephanie, Esteban, etc). The idea was to show how absurd these lists that the creationists seem to rely on really are. And it worked!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 05-15-2003 9:29 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by nator, posted 05-16-2003 8:56 AM Quetzal has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 59 (40236)
05-15-2003 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Fencer
05-15-2003 7:49 AM


What that difference is and why real chemists felt the need to clearly distinguish between what constitutes inorganic matter and organic matter....
Actually I'm pretty sure that would be organic/inorganic molecules, as in organic are produced by living creatures (although not exclusively, H2O an CO2 for example) or contains a carbon backbone...
If it really is matter that you mean could you explain the difference between the quarks and leptons that make up an ant and a pebble? Apart from the nmber and ratio that is, what special properties does the matter of the ant posess that the pebble doesn't?
See personally I am interested and I'm sure we could observe these new hadrons and leptons say at CERN were you to give us some account of how they differ from the regular garden variety....
[This message has been edited by joz, 05-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Fencer, posted 05-15-2003 7:49 AM Fencer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 05-22-2003 6:01 AM joz has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 44 of 59 (40246)
05-15-2003 11:35 AM


organic matter
Fencer, I'm a Real Chemist(TM), PhD The Ohio State University, 1979, specializing in organic/organometallic chemistry. I would like to ask a very easy question of you: is the vitamin niacin organic or inorganic? A one word answer will be sufficient.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2003 12:11 PM Coragyps has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 45 of 59 (40254)
05-15-2003 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coragyps
05-15-2003 11:35 AM


Re: organic matter
Oooh, ooh. I know this one! Pick me, pick me!
3-pyridine carboxylic acid
Am I right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2003 11:35 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by John, posted 05-15-2003 12:17 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 48 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2003 2:22 PM Quetzal has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024