Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 1:55 AM
430 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 428 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,960 Year: 6,566/21,208 Month: 2,327/2,634 Week: 515/572 Day: 1/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   One liners, or how to make the PRATTS fall
jar
Member
Posts: 28432
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 16 of 50 (649568)
01-24-2012 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
01-24-2012 12:04 PM


And which they will likely refuse to understand when you explain further.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-24-2012 12:04 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 17 of 50 (649664)
01-24-2012 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by herebedragons
01-23-2012 10:12 PM


Layering
Layering of fossils is of course an immense problem for YEC.
Diatoms and Radiolarians are microscopic critters similar in size and composition so should be mixed. But Radiolarians are found all the way down to the Cambrian, Diatoms only Jurassic and above.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by herebedragons, posted 01-23-2012 10:12 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6064
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 18 of 50 (649859)
01-26-2012 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by herebedragons
01-23-2012 10:12 PM


herebedragons writes:

quote:
It would be nice to have some simple rebuttals to arguments like hydro-logic sorting.

Answer: Potato chips in a bag.

When they look at you quizzically, point out that in a bag of potato chips, all the biggest chips are on the top and all the crumbs are on the bottom. That's what we should see if there were hyrdological sorting: The little bits fall through the gaps that the big bits leave as they clump together and settle at the bottom. If the fossil record were hydrologically sorted, all the whale fossils should be on top.

But they're not.

So they weren't.

You might consider pulling out your Lewis Carroll for that last:

If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by herebedragons, posted 01-23-2012 10:12 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2012 3:56 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 19 of 50 (649866)
01-26-2012 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rrhain
01-26-2012 12:42 AM


When they look at you quizzically, point out that in a bag of potato chips, all the biggest chips are on the top and all the crumbs are on the bottom. That's what we should see if there were hyrdological sorting: The little bits fall through the gaps that the big bits leave as they clump together and settle at the bottom.

Actually that's not how it works. What you're describing is not hydraulic sorting (N.B: only creationists call it hydrological sorting, because they took a vow to be wrong about everything). what you're talking about is the Brazil Nut Effect, which is different. Hydraulic sorting requires water, and in h.s. the finest particles of sediment settle last, because their small size makes them behave like dust-motes in air, they don't plummet straight down, but swirl about. (I think I read somewhere that a coccolith takes about a year to "fall" from the surface of the sea to the ocean bed. A chip of gravel would obviously go much faster.) Another difference is that the B.N.E. requires a prolonged period of shaking for the small nuts to settle down to the bottom, whereas with h.s. if you give a jar of earth and water one good shake and then leave it alone, it'll settle as I've described --- with the B.N.E. the shaking is the cause of the sorting, whereas with h.s. the shaking is just the cause of the sediment being distributed through the fluid, and it would happen if there was some other cause of the original mixture.

However, your point as amended is a good one --- if the sediment had been hydraulically sorted, then the sediment would be hydraulically sorted. This kind of logic will always remain out of the grasp of the average creationist, because of its immense and baffling complexity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rrhain, posted 01-26-2012 12:42 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Pressie, posted 01-26-2012 4:35 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1479
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 20 of 50 (649867)
01-26-2012 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
01-26-2012 3:56 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

However, your point as amended is a good one --- if the sediment had been hydraulically sorted, then the sediment would be hydraulically sorted.

But, but, Dr Adequate, only the fossils were hydraulically sorted, the sediments were not for some reason...gravity is "just a theory", remember! All in the same flood, but it only applies to fossils, not to sediments. Magic!
Dr Adequate writes:

This kind of logic will always remain out of the grasp of the average creationist, because of its immense and baffling complexity.

I think it's because they don't want to accept reality. That's the only reason.

Edited by Pressie, : Added sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2012 3:56 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4405
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 21 of 50 (649892)
01-26-2012 10:12 AM


Q. But I see order and design everywhere. Order and design requires a designer, it can't happen by chance can it?

A. Here, read this. (The Blind Watchmaker)

I really don't have a pithy answer that works for this one.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2012 11:36 AM Tangle has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 22 of 50 (649899)
01-26-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tangle
01-26-2012 10:12 AM


Q. But I see order and design everywhere. Order and design requires a designer, it can't happen by chance can it?

A. That's exactly why no-one has ever said that it did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2012 10:12 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2012 11:41 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4405
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 23 of 50 (649900)
01-26-2012 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dr Adequate
01-26-2012 11:36 AM


Sloppy of me, try this:

Q. But I see order and design everywhere. Order and design requires a designer doesn't it?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2012 11:36 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2012 12:00 PM Tangle has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 24 of 50 (649902)
01-26-2012 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tangle
01-26-2012 11:41 AM


Sloppy of me, try this:

Q. But I see order and design everywhere. Order and design requires a designer doesn't it?

But you do not see design everywhere. You see order; you infer design.

But this inference is not necessarily correct --- if you see the order in a snowflake, you would be wrong to infer design by Jack Frost; we know that this order is produced by natural processes.

That's not as pithy as one would wish, but there's two mistakes packed into the same question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2012 11:41 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2012 2:09 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 29 by anglagard, posted 01-26-2012 11:29 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4405
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 25 of 50 (649912)
01-26-2012 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
01-26-2012 12:00 PM


...which begs the next question

Q. but snowflakes show design, even if the process of forming them is natural, something had to create the process that forms them naturally.

And so on until you get to 'something can't come from nothing'


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2012 12:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2012 2:19 PM Tangle has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 26 of 50 (649915)
01-26-2012 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tangle
01-26-2012 2:09 PM


Q. but snowflakes show design, even if the process of forming them is natural, something had to create the process that forms them naturally.

A1. Assertion is not evidence; it is not even argument.

A2. So you're a deist now, or what? If you will admit that the process of forming the various kinds of organisms was completely natural, then since I was arguing for evolution, rather than against deism, I win.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2012 2:09 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2012 2:37 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4405
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 27 of 50 (649920)
01-26-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
01-26-2012 2:19 PM


A1. Assertion is not evidence; it is not even argument.

Oh yes it is. (just saying....)

A2. So you're a deist now, or what? If you will admit that the process of forming the various kinds of organisms was completely natural, then since I was arguing for evolution, rather than against deism, I win.

I doubt that 1 in 10 fundies know what a Deist or a Theist is. Certainly you'd have to explain painfully that you can't make the logic leap from believing that some sort of god created the universe to 'and he loves you and cares for you, answers your prayers and is called Allah etc etc'.

And anyway, I believe that everything we see around us was created, not evolved and your bloody snow flake or crystal or whatever just shows that he's got an eye for detail and is damn good at it. Obviously design needs a designer.

Not rational you see.....


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2012 2:19 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


(1)
Message 28 of 50 (649992)
01-26-2012 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by herebedragons
01-23-2012 10:12 PM


herebedragons writes:


It would be nice to have some simple rebuttals to arguments like hydro-logic sorting.

"Tornado in a junkyard!".

errr... would you believe aerodynamic sorting?


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by herebedragons, posted 01-23-2012 10:12 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 2157
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 29 of 50 (650001)
01-26-2012 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
01-26-2012 12:00 PM


All Bow to Jack Frost
But this inference is not necessarily correct --- if you see the order in a snowflake, you would be wrong to infer design by Jack Frost; we know that this order is produced by natural processes.

Oh yeah, can you prove Jack Frost doesn't exist?


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2012 12:00 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2012 7:51 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 30 of 50 (650125)
01-27-2012 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by anglagard
01-26-2012 11:29 PM


if anyone wants a list
Pratt list from Talk Origins

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

For instance:

quote:
Claim CH581:
The Grand Canyon was created suddenly by the retreating waters of Noah's Flood.

Which is why it goes through a high point of the ridge.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by anglagard, posted 01-26-2012 11:29 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017