EvC Forum: A proof against ID and Creationism

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: A proof against ID and Creationism

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9004

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 98 of 300 (251246)
10-12-2005 5:50 PM

Reply to: Message 92 by Jeremy
10-12-2005 11:41 AM

Welcome (and some clarifications)

Hi, Jeremy, welcome to EvC.

Now, as far as evolution is concerned. . . The idea that there were simple life forms that developed into complex ones is very far fetched indeed. But the idea that the whole entire universe, in terms of atoms, quarks, neutrons, protons, etc, just happened and everything in it works in such a fine fashion, that even quarks never fail or malfunction on their own, is preposterous. It's estimated that if one atom was completely taken apart, all at once, the energy released would be enough to completely destroy any city on earth, flatten it to the ground. The mystery of evolution to me is not the primordial "soup." It is the big bang theory. That all the particles in the universe obey the laws of physics and relate to each other in such perfect harmony. That is a mystery that someone needs to explain to me. Evolution doesn't explain that paradox, intelligent design. . . consider

I'd like to suggest that you think through what you are posting a bit more before you throw it out there.

This "paragraph" has a bit of a hodge-podge of stuff in it. The comment about the energy in an atom, for example, doesn't appear to have anything to do with anything else in the paragraph. Nor is it obvious to me that it furthers whatever point you are trying to make.

There is another thing you should note: the word "evolution" has some colloquial english meanings. In the contest of the discussion here it if you don't add some modifier in front then it is taken to mean "biological evolution". This is the topic that is discussed under the term "darwinism" or "neo darwinism". Biological evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang or origin of life. It is only, as the name points out, discussing how living things change over time.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 92 by Jeremy, posted 10-12-2005 11:41 AM		Jeremy has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9004

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 148 of 300 (281077)
01-23-2006 10:58 PM

Reply to: Message 147 by Menachem
01-23-2006 9:58 PM

This is a science forum.

In this thread you will have to do better than that. Playing pretend mystical word games has no meaning in this discussion.

You probably think you sound very clever. What you sound is silly.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 147 by Menachem, posted 01-23-2006 9:58 PM		Menachem has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 149 by Menachem, posted 01-23-2006 11:06 PM		NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9004

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 159 of 300 (281641)
01-26-2006 1:28 AM

Reply to: Message 158 by Jon
01-26-2006 1:18 AM

A way out.

So, are you saying that ID and Creationism disprove themselves?

Ah, but they have a way out of this. They say that the reasoning they apply to less wonderful things doesn't apply to the special case of God.

This is, of course, a very clear example of "special pleading". An enormous weakness in any argument of this kind but strength of logical argument is not something that they worry much about as long as they can bailing wire together something to sell to the already sold.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 158 by Jon, posted 01-26-2006 1:18 AM		Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 160 by Jon, posted 01-26-2006 1:42 AM		NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9004

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 163 of 300 (281860)
01-26-2006 10:28 PM

Reply to: Message 162 by pianoprincess*
01-26-2006 9:50 PM

other interpretations

2ndly, we do have physical evidence. We have the same evidence that you do, we just interpret it differently because we have different presuppositions.

Oo oo, someone brings up the other interpretations again. Are you the one who is going to take the physical evidence and offer an logical, consistent (for all the data) alternative interpretation?

I've lost count of how many times I've asked for one or a reference to a web site (that hasn't already been torn to pieces here and other places) that offers such a thing.

An alterntive interpretation has to have the same detail, same rigour and same overall consistency as the mainstream one. It can't be: "I don't like the conclusion so I'll conclude something else while ignoring 90% of the evidence"

This message is a reply to:
	Message 162 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-26-2006 9:50 PM		pianoprincess* has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9004

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 164 of 300 (281861)
01-26-2006 10:33 PM

Reply to: Message 162 by pianoprincess*
01-26-2006 9:50 PM

Missing links

I have yet to see a 'missing link' for starters.

This would be a good one to take to one of the threads on missing links. You could start by supplying your definition of what one is and why that definition should be used in light of evolutionary explanations.

(I'll add a link to one later when I find it).

science is incapable of proving anything 100%.

Right on! What it does do is reduce the chance of an explanation being wrong. It keeps pushing it down by trying to prove it, not right, but WRONG. It also has at least some objective evidence for starting down some particular explanatory path.

But evolutionsis have not provied satifactory evidence proving thier ideas either.

This statement isn't one you can make. That is because you have no real idea of what evidence there is. If you know about .01 % of it I'd be surprised.

What you can say is: "I know so little about this that I can allow myself to conclude what I want as long as I don't learn about it."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 162 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-26-2006 9:50 PM		pianoprincess* has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 170 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-27-2006 11:46 PM		NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9004

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 206 of 300 (283506)
02-02-2006 6:09 PM

Reply to: Message 202 by Menachem
02-02-2006 5:22 PM

Interpretation by humans

Humans have no idea!

Ah, so you are not human?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 202 by Menachem, posted 02-02-2006 5:22 PM		Menachem has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 210 by Menachem, posted 02-02-2006 6:20 PM		NosyNed has replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9004

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 214 of 300 (283520)
02-02-2006 6:47 PM

Reply to: Message 210 by Menachem
02-02-2006 6:20 PM

Having understanding...

With such understanding you should be a valuable resource here.

However, we should also note that the idea that something not there is speaking to one is a sign of very serious mental illness too.

Since there are hints (but only hints so far) that your understanding of the real world is faulty I'm going to provisionally go with the later idea.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 210 by Menachem, posted 02-02-2006 6:20 PM		Menachem has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 215 by Menachem, posted 02-02-2006 6:56 PM		NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9004

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 242 of 300 (286021)
02-12-2006 6:44 PM

Reply to: Message 239 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 5:54 PM

Re: No creator, but science

Anything new requires intelligence. Ingenuity and creation requires some one who has the capability of design

Have you been reading posts in reply to you for the last several days? It has been demonstrated very thoroughly that newness does NOT require an intelligence.

It takes lot more faith on my part to believe that everything self assembled( like proteins) than to believe in an intelligent designer who invents.

Here you exhibit an inability to separate biological evolution from the chemistry required to get to the first life-like forms. Please remember to keep them separate.

Biological evolution can take very simple imperfect replicators to what we see today. Getting the first replicators is, as has been noted, a subject of some study today.

If you wish to believe that those studies will never answer the question because your intelligent designer did it you are, to a limited degree, free to believe that for now. It isn't a very safe position to adopt but you are free too.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 239 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:54 PM		inkorrekt has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0