Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 391 of 936 (805952)
04-21-2017 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by NoNukes
04-21-2017 7:32 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
Plants didn't die, they were eaten.
There was no entropy before the Fall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2017 7:32 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2017 8:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 402 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2017 10:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 392 of 936 (805955)
04-21-2017 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Faith
04-21-2017 7:46 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
There was no entropy before the Fall.
Were those non-dead plants digested? Did Adam derive energy from eating food?
Did water evaporate before the fall? Did time move forwards? Did the sun warm the earth?
Then, yes there was entropy before the fall. As is the case for most stuff that involves something higher than high school physical science, you simply have no clue what you are talking about. You've become a parody of your own self.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 7:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 393 of 936 (805957)
04-21-2017 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by dwise1
04-21-2017 6:52 PM


Not equivalent
In the case of two objects being dropped towards the earth's surface, the mass of the earth is significantly greater than the mass of either object, so they're effectively the same mass, 1, and the gravitational force working on both objects would be the same.
This is incorrect. If small m is 1 kg in one case and 2 kgs in the other. The gravitational force on the later is twice the former. Not matter that the mass M is many orders of magnitude greater.
The reason that the two objects (in a vacuum etc) accelerate at the same rate is that for mysterious reasons (as far as I know) maybe god ordained the inertial mass of an object is the same as the gravitational mass. So if object m2 is twice the mass of object m1 then the inertial mass cancels out the gravitational force and produces the same acceleration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2017 6:52 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 394 of 936 (805958)
04-21-2017 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Coyote
04-20-2017 10:05 AM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
Coyote: ""Useful" science = fields that don't disprove our beliefs. Not useful science = everything else."
Creationists not only accept all scientific pricipals that have proven useful in applied science, they also accept all scientific theories that have been verified by observation and experiment. These facts don't support your hypothosis that creationists are "anti-scientific".
Creationists may however, reject scientific theories thatcannot be put to the test. For example, I don't put any faith in String Theory, Quantum Loop Theory or Parallel Universe Theory, because they can't be tested and therefore their veracity can't be established. So there are many scientific theories that I don't accept and for reasons that have zero to do with religion. This is not being anti-scientific, just sensible. (The Catholic Church teaches that scientific facts will never contradict the Catholic faith, because truth cannot contradict truth.)
But what is decidedly anti-scientific is calling a theory that cannot be put to the test a "fact". Can you think of an example of this sort of abuse of science? I can.
-----------------------------------------------------
I asked you to name a creationist belief that would prevent a creationist from becoming a competent professional in the field of applied biology. You responded by claiming that a young-earth creationist would not make a very effective geologist.
Firstly, not all creationists are young-earthers - me, for example; I'm an old-earth creationist.
Secondly, I was talking about applied biology, not geology.
Thirdly, I suspect that there is no reason why a young-earth creationist wouldn't make a competent professional in the field of applied geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2017 10:05 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2017 11:10 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 407 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2017 12:58 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 395 of 936 (805959)
04-21-2017 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by dwise1
04-20-2017 10:34 AM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
dwise1: "creationists ... hold beliefs ... that are contrary to fact."
An example, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2017 10:34 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2017 11:38 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 396 of 936 (805960)
04-21-2017 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Pressie
04-20-2017 5:47 AM


Pressie: "From my work, I concluded that the firstforms of life (as we know life) were unicellular."
I'm not sure what your point is, but my point is, believing that all life evolved from a common ancestor is useless to applied biology. You've come to the conclusion that the first forms of life were unicellular - so what? How are your fossils and your conclusion useful to applied biology (or to any form of applied science, for that matter)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2017 5:47 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 397 of 936 (805961)
04-21-2017 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by dwise1
04-21-2017 1:02 AM


Re: If Not, What?
What are talking about? Read my lips: I AGREE with you - they are two diiferent enrirely different mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2017 1:02 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2017 11:42 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 398 of 936 (805962)
04-21-2017 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Taq
04-21-2017 3:46 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
Taq: "The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable."
And the reason we have the Bible is because human beings aren't reliable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Taq, posted 04-21-2017 3:46 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2017 9:41 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 399 of 936 (805963)
04-21-2017 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by dwise1
04-20-2017 11:24 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
The science magazine you refer to forgot to mention that all those respondents who chose the spiral trajectory were retarded three-year olds who were tripping on a massive dose of LSD. Even the village idiot would have enough common sense not to choose the spiral trajectory!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2017 11:24 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 400 of 936 (805965)
04-21-2017 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by jar
04-17-2017 9:00 PM


Re: Dredge is once again wrong.
jar: "the theory of evolution says nothing about origins".
You could have fooled me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by jar, posted 04-17-2017 9:00 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2017 8:56 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 401 of 936 (805968)
04-21-2017 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Dredge
04-21-2017 8:44 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
And the reason we have the Bible is because human beings aren't reliable.
Agreed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Dredge, posted 04-21-2017 8:44 PM Dredge has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 402 of 936 (805975)
04-21-2017 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Faith
04-21-2017 7:46 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
Plants didn't die, they were eaten.
Just to demonstrate that you will say whatever is convenient to win an argument about something you have no clue about, I offer this Message 197 past post of yours:
Faith writes:
I AM convinced by the overall implication of the scripture verses I've put together, along with the general tenor of scripture as a whole, that there could not have been the death of any creature before the Fall (plants excepted for sure, and possibly insects and single-celled creatures excepted as well, but only possibly
Which is it, Faith? Do plants, after being eaten and digested by say, a lion, still live, or is it certain that plants did die before the fall?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 7:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 403 of 936 (805982)
04-21-2017 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Dredge
04-21-2017 8:22 PM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
Creationists not only accept all scientific pricipals that have proven useful in applied science, they also accept all scientific theories that have been verified by observation and experiment. These facts don't support your hypothosis that creationists are "anti-scientific".
"Useful in applied science" is not a valid criterion in science.
"verified by observation and experiment" is not a valid criterion in science.
In both cases creationists have attempted to make this distinction to separate the fields of science that they are OK with while condemning the ones that disprove their religious beliefs.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Both use the same scientific method, and attempts by creationists to draw a distinction between the two is anti-science and based entirely on religious belief.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Dredge, posted 04-21-2017 8:22 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 12:29 AM Coyote has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 404 of 936 (805984)
04-21-2017 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Dredge
04-21-2017 8:25 PM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
dwise1: "creationists ... hold beliefs ... that are contrary to fact."
An example, please.
I'll give you two major ones:
  1. Young earth
  2. Noah's Flood
There are a very great many more examples, but most of them are minor ones related to claims which are used to support the major ones.
Here's a John Morris quote which illustrates what I was talking about. At the 1986 International Conference on Creationism, John Morris was half of the ICR's geology department who directly challenged a talk that soon-to-be-ex-YEC and practicing field geologist Glenn R. Morton had just finished delivering. Morton asked Morris how old the earth is. Morris' reply: "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."
I received my fundamentalist Christian training with the Jesus Freak Movement in 1970, so I have ears to hear. I know the ramifications of that statement for a fundamentalist. And that has been verified to me a number of times over the past few decades by YECs.
So then, a YEC is taught and believes that if the young earth and Noah's Flood and a number of other things (see Creation Model for the ICR's main list) are not true, then Scripture has no meaning and God either does not exist or else is such a Liar that He is not worthy of worship so you should just throw your Bible into the dustbin and become a hedonistic atheist running naked through the streets (what a Canadian YEC insisted upon including becoming an atheist, except I embellished the atheist part a bit based on Christian attitudes about atheism that I have observed over and over again).
So my question for discussion is: What should a YEC really do when he learns that his theology is wrong on a few points, such as the age of the earth?
Based on that and on how extremely important a fundamentalist's religion and faith (not the same things) are to him, I would expect the YEC to do everything he possibly can to avoid facing that fact.
However, if we keep in mind that theologies are Man-made and anything that fallible Man makes cannot possibly be infallible (that is one point that my fundamentalism teachers kept stressing over and over again, though they never thought to apply it to their theology as well ... hmm!). So we should expect our Man-made theologies to contain errors. So when we do inevitably find one of those inevitable errors, what should we do? The answer I keep receiving is to trash the entire theology and abandon it -- mind you, this is a consequence of assigning the property of infallibility to a fallible construct, the theology. I would suggest that we note that error and correct our theology accordingly.
OBTW, I also maintain that everybody creates his own theology. Yes, he does endeavor to make it an exact copy of his particular church's official theology, but since we cannot have complete and perfect knowledge of a theology, especially when we are in the process of learning it, and also since we can only follow a theology that we have internalized (like just about any other subject matter), all we have to work with is an imperfect copy filled with misunderstandings. That is why I maintain that a believer must constantly question his beliefs in order to weed out the errors that he had made. Plus that keeps you thinking about those things and being mindful of them, which should be a good thing in religion, what?
OBTW, I have been an atheist for more than half a century. That does not automatically make me your enemy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Dredge, posted 04-21-2017 8:25 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 12:33 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 405 of 936 (805985)
04-21-2017 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by Dredge
04-21-2017 8:34 PM


Re: If Not, What?
What are talking about? Read my lips: I AGREE with you - they are two diiferent enrirely different mechanisms.
I'm sorry, but I cannot see your lips. Please move much closer to your computer monitor screen. No, even closer, like across the Pacific Ocean.
Sorry. I probably wasn't completely coherent at that time of the night.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Dredge, posted 04-21-2017 8:34 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024