|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I am disappointed that this topic that I posted was paid so little attention, so I'm going to try to revive it. this is a cut n paste:
I have been involved in these on-line Creation/Evolution discussions for several years now, and there are some basic questions which I always ask of Creationists who claim that "Scientific Creationism" is scientific. I have yet to get any answers to them. Perhaps the Creationists in this forum will provide. I will list a few of them to get us started. 1)Define "kind". In other words, how do we tell one "kind" from another? 2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong, then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another? (And we understand the conditions under which they give strange dates; i.e. they are predicted) 3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You seem to display a lot of attitude for such a poor debater.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Like I have said before, Brad, I don't have a flipping clue what the heck you are trying to say.
Like, why on earth bring up nanotechnology, the Pope, or New Orleans? Either get off the drugs or get back on your meds, man!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Marry, this well carried shall on her behalf Change slander to remorse; that is some good: But not for that dream I on this strange course, But on this travail look for greater birth. She dying, as it must so be maintain'd, Upon the instant that she was accused, Shall be lamented, pitied and excused Of every hearer: for it so falls out That what we have we prize not to the worth Whiles we enjoy it, but being lack'd and lost, Why, then we rack the value, then we find The virtue that possession would not show us Whiles it was ours. So will it fare with Claudio: When he shall hear she died upon his words, The idea of her life shall sweetly creep Into his study of imagination, And every lovely organ of her life Shall come apparell'd in more precious habit, More moving-delicate and full of life, Into the eye and prospect of his soul, Than when she lived indeed; then shall he mourn, If ever love had interest in his liver, And wish he had not so accused her, No, though he thought his accusation true. Let this be so, and doubt not but success Will fashion the event in better shape Than I can lay it down in likelihood. But if all aim but this be levell'd false, The supposition of the lady's death Will quench the wonder of her infamy: And if it sort not well, you may conceal her, As best befits her wounded reputation, In some reclusive and religious life, Out of all eyes, tongues, minds and injuries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Sorry, didn't mean to scare you! LOL!! It is, indeed, The Bard, and it is from the scene in the church during Much Ado About Nothing. Brad's response to my Shakespeare quote is the strangest one yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I could see how someone who doesn't know anything about the Big Bang Theory or the Abiogenesis theory would think that. It is much easier to decide that the Bible is right ahead of time than to do any study of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No. The point is, in science, we do not "believe" in things that do not have evidence to support them. We say "I don't know".
quote: Yes, but so? We cannot reproduce the exact conditions of the planet when life first came about. This might be something that we never know the anwer to, but not knowing does not = Godidit.
quote: So, you will not accept the evidence for Abiogenesis, even if it is acheived? Sounds like a creationist.
[QUOTE]"As for your "accurate" book,thats a matter of opinion and i'm afraid that despite pretense to the contrary,yours is very much clouded on the subject."--All attempts to discredit it have simply failed, even in your own various arguments requiring interperetation of the bible, as it is obvious, discussion on this subject is no problem if you desire it, i do not see it as an opinion because it isn't an opinionated assertion, it is factually based with my current knowledge, and if anyone would like to inform me otherwize, you can attempt. [/B][/QUOTE] They haven't failed. You are just very slippery and interpret and reinterpret the Bible at whim to never be wrong. Do you believe that the Bible has no contradictions? If so, have a look at my post on the crucifiction in the "Is the Bible the Word of God?" thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[b] quote: Um, what? I am not a Biologist. Are you actually trying to say that I should be doing original research out in the field or something, otherwise my views are not valid? Give me a break. If that was the case then you should reject nearly all of the stuff Creation "scientists" put out there, because they certainly aren't doing much original research, even though they are supposed to be professionals.
quote: No, I am not expecting you, personally, to write your own flood model. I am expecting you to be able to provide that which you argue for. I can, for example, go to a well-referenced scientific site and find a stated scientific theory concerning, let's say, common descent. I can, IOW, find out what the current consensus of the scientific community is about a given scientific idea. All I am asking for is for you to do the same thing with the flood "model" or theory, if there is one. How can you discuss the validity of a theory if you can't say, precisely, what it is?
quote: quote: No, evolutionists are not rash. It is Creationists that explain "kind" to mean "species" at times (but not all the time). "Kind" has no meaning as a scientific term.
quote: If you are saying that it is impossible to know what "kind" really means because man cannot know what God meant, then why attempt to use the word in a scientific context? Also, how is consensus ever going to be reached if the basis for all of it is revelation rather than evidence? One person's "word of God" is another person's heresy.
quote: quote: OK, let's use your number; 97%
quote: Um, RC, 97% is a LOT of similarity between species, even though you are trying to convince yourself otherwise. You don't even sound too convinced after trying to convince yourself. You should also know that even the pseudogenes are largely identical in Chimps and humans. Besides, the point is that Baraminology states that humans and chimps are not related AT ALL. If this were true, we should see 0% similarity in genes, right? (except that all life forms on the planet share some genes, but it seems that Creationists don't like to talk about genetics much.) If chimps and humans are so very different, after all, why are primates so valuable for medical research which pertains to humans? Why do we test human drugs and procedures on any primates at all if they are not really related to us? Why do results of primate tests tend to be so reliable when applied to humans if we aren't very similar creatures?
quote: quote: Cute, but unrelated points. I asked a specific question about specific terminology. Evidence for evolution can be seen here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html I have more if you want them.
quote: quote: No, just say that you don't know the answer. Or you could take a page from your own advice to me and "do your own research". quote: quote: Saying "leaves and flowers float" doesn't address the problem of the clear line between non-flowering plants and flowering plants in the geologic record. Why aren't flowering plants mixed in with non-flowering in the deepest layers, if a flood happened?
quote: quote: So, you are free to interpret the bible any way you want to? OK, I say that the "fountains of the deep" were actual fountains, like those you see in front of big office buildings. Show me that my interpretation is wrong.
quote: quote: I agree that the Bible doesn't necessarily make any assertions, depending upon who is interpreting it. However, some PEOPLE (namely, those at the ICR, AIG, and CRS) DO very much make assertions based upon their interpretation of the Bible.
quote: Look, YOU are the one who says that this flood model exists, and that I misunderstand it. Well, help me to understand. Show me this flood model that you say exists and that I don't understand. I don't think you should have to write it, but I do think that you should have to find it and provide it, since you claim it exists. If you can't provide it, then you have been talking out of your arse. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth" [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-01-2002] [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-01-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
['QUOTE]"Also, just because humans can't figure something out does not then mean that "Godidit".[/QUOTE]
quote: You do not separate your religious faith and your science. You haven't approached any subject in a scientific way thus far. You think you have, to be sure, but you have not. If you do not see that, after so many people here (including several professional scientists) have tried to explain how science is done to you, I fear that you are choosing to not learn.
quote: quote: It might apply to the supernatural, but as science ignorses the supernatural, it is a moot point. My original point remains; People may not have the brain power to understand a lot of things, but this in no way constitutes positive evidence for Godidit. This is the basis of your argument for why science's logic is flawed and why yours is better, and it is the God of the Gaps argument.
quote: You have said, over and over, that the reason why God "had" to have been the cause of this or that is because we either do not know how something happened, or you cannot even imagine humans ever figuring out how this or that happened. This is the God of the Gaps argument, pure and simple. I understand it all too well.
quote: quote: This is not specific at all In fact, it is a general hand-wave. Present some equations or some specific physical properties and consequences which you think are flaws in the theory.
quote: More vague hand-waving. SPECIFICS are what I asked for. Which odds, exactly? What do you mean, exactly, by "fine-tuning"? Fine tuning of what, exactly?
quote: quote: You haven't listed any problems, only vague assertions. My point is not to discuss the Big Bang or Abiogenesis, althoug we can do that. My point is to show you that you hold very strong opinions about subjects that you know LITTLE TO NOTHING about. Why do you think you have any business holding forth about how the Big Bang is such a flawed theory when it is clear that you cannot even identify SPECIFIC problems with the physics or the math? This is a very arrogant attitude.
quote: quote: Speculation is all you have got. That means that you don't know, and because you don't want to just "not know", you decide that you actually DO know...Godidit!
quote: quote: So, you will renounce YEC, the Flood, etc. and retreat to ID? Well, then you retreat to non-science, because ID is not science, but philosphy. It provides no theory, makes no predictions, and is not supported by positive evidence.
quote: [QUOTE]--Again I don't say that the bible is inerant, pre-conseively. But with our known understanding on the way things work, it sure is correct.[/B][/QUOTE] If you mean that with YOUR OWN understanding of how things work in nature the Bible is correct, then that is one thing. However, who do you mean when you say "we" in the above sentence? I know you cannot mean AIG, the ICR or the CRS, because you have already told me that these groups, even though they are the most prominent Creation "science" organizations, do not actually represent current Creation "science" study or thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Um, then why are they called "Evolutionary Biologists?"
LOL!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Science doesn't use the word "kind", therefore science cannot define it. Creation "science" uses the word kind, so it therefore needs to define what it means and by what method and criterion different "kinds" are identified. Since Creation 'science' claims to be real science, then it must define it's terms, yet I have never been provided, nor have I ever been able to find, a sufficently firm and clear, non-Bible-based reasoning behind the criterion used to tell one 'kind' from another. The only conclusion that can be reached is that "kind" is a religious term, not a scientific one, despite Creationist's claim to the contrary.
quote: Right, like I mentioned above, the times that they are not consistent are well-understood and predicted. Even still, let's hypothetically say that they were incorrect 20% of the time. (In reality, it is only wrong a few percent of the time, but I'll give you this huge number just for argument's sake) How do you explain the other %80 of the time that all the dating methods corroborate each other remarkably well? So, since when do scientific methods have to be 100% perfect at all times for them to be reliable??
quote: Really? Please provide evidence of this rather fantastic claim!
quote: True Creation, for one. Anyone who says that the GC was formed by a Noachian flood, for others.
[QUOTE]Death occurred before the flood and continued after the flood. Also not everything that has lived and died has become fossilized and we haven't looked in every place for these fossils. What if what you seek is under the Antartic ice cap, well below the land surface?[/B][/QUOTE] You still have to explain the GC and the fossils that are known, and these do not indicate a worldwide flood event that happened a few thousand years ago. You also completely avoided my question. Why have we not found a SINGLE flowering plant fossil in the lower layers of the GC?? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-24-2002] [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Hmm. Maybe first you could explain what stripe of creationist you are. OEC? ID? How literally do you interpret Genesis/the Bible? What do you believe? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024