Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gravity versus the Young-Earth Creationists
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 55 (105270)
05-04-2004 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Joe Meert
05-04-2004 2:37 PM


Re: Starlight & Time
There isn't any naturalistic explanation for the origins of life. Why is un-scientific to look for an explanation elsewhere
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JM: There is no testable supernatural explanation for the origins of life either. It's not wrong to look elsewhere, or even bad to look elsewhere, it's simply not science. For all your bragging about being a scientist, you sure make some funny assertions.
John Paul:
Actually we don't need a supernatual explanation, although one does exist. All we need to do is to use existing processes on how to detect design. As Dr. Behe states: ": Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.
JM:
It's not wrong to look elsewhere, or even bad to look elsewhere, it's simply not science.
John Paul:
That is about as false ofd a statement as one can make. Obviously you know very little about what science is or from some unknown agenda choose to limit it.
BTW facts are not brags. I never bragged about being a scientist. I merely stated it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Joe Meert, posted 05-04-2004 2:37 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Joe Meert, posted 05-04-2004 6:29 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 48 by fnord, posted 05-05-2004 4:30 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2004 5:11 AM John Paul has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 47 of 55 (105323)
05-04-2004 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by John Paul
05-04-2004 3:45 PM


Re: Starlight & Time
quote:
JP:That is about as false ofd a statement as one can make.
JM: That depends on the context. Intelligent design is not science as is acknowledged by people like Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute. Ye-creationism is not science as acknowledged by many ye-creationists. You're swimming against the current trying to convince yourself that the are science.
quote:
I never bragged about being a scientist. I merely stated it.
JM: In that case, I am your president!
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited Joe Meert, 05-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John Paul, posted 05-04-2004 3:45 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:26 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
fnord
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 55 (105464)
05-05-2004 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by John Paul
05-04-2004 3:45 PM


Re: Starlight & Time
quote:
There isn't any naturalistic explanation for the origins of life.
I somehow miss the word yet at the end of that sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John Paul, posted 05-04-2004 3:45 PM John Paul has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 49 of 55 (105467)
05-05-2004 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by John Paul
05-04-2004 1:39 PM


Re: Starlight & Time
John Paul writes:
Can't you see that all you are doing is lip service? There isn't any naturalistic explanation for the origins of life. Why is un-scientific to look for an explanation elsewhere?
Discussions on how it all began can be made here.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by John Paul, posted 05-04-2004 1:39 PM John Paul has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 55 (105473)
05-05-2004 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by John Paul
05-04-2004 3:45 PM


All we need to do is to use existing processes on how to detect design.
Over here I take a handful of pennies and scatter them across the floor.
Over there I take the same number of pennies and, after copying down the precise locations of the first pennies, painstakingly duplicate that layout with the second group.
So I have one group of randomly scattered pennies, and one group that has been painstakingly designed. By all means, apply your "existing processes" and tell me how you'll detect the design present in one of the groups but not in the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John Paul, posted 05-04-2004 3:45 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AdminNosy, posted 05-05-2004 11:59 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 53 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 51 of 55 (105529)
05-05-2004 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
05-05-2004 5:11 AM


Topic Topic
This may be setting a record for distance from original topic.
Forum: Dates and Dating
Topic: Gravity versus the Young-Earth Creationists
Pennies? I guess gravity caused the pennies to fall. Is that why it's here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2004 5:11 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 55 (105563)
05-05-2004 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Joe Meert
05-04-2004 6:29 PM


Re: Starlight & Time
JM:
JM: That depends on the context. Intelligent design is not science as is acknowledged by people like Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute. Ye-creationism is not science as acknowledged by many ye-creationists. You're swimming against the current trying to convince yourself that the are science.
John Paul:
I have asked you several times to substantiate your claim about Paul Nelson and you have yet to do it. Therefore I can only conclude that it is a false statement. YECs also state that the theory of evolution isn't science. I have heard/ read many YECs with advanced degrees say that YEC IS science. What I definitely won't do is to take your word for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Joe Meert, posted 05-04-2004 6:29 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 55 (105566)
05-05-2004 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
05-05-2004 5:11 AM


cf:
So I have one group of randomly scattered pennies, and one group that has been painstakingly designed. By all means, apply your "existing processes" and tell me how you'll detect the design present in one of the groups but not in the other.
John Paul:
In this case you have used intelligent intervention to get around the design explanatory filter. Of course any intelligent agent can design something to not look designed at all. The DEF differentiates between chance, law and design. It is a starting point. IOW it is NOT the final authority. The process for ID is very similar to the process archaeologists use, anthropologists when researching artifacts, arson investigators, forensics and SETI.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2004 5:11 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by AdminNosy, posted 05-05-2004 2:19 PM John Paul has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 54 of 55 (105596)
05-05-2004 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by John Paul
05-05-2004 1:31 PM


Back on Topic Please
I was remiss in letting this go on for so long. Please take this to an ID thread. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:31 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 55 of 55 (107026)
05-10-2004 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Harlequin
02-22-2004 3:34 PM


Thanks, Harlequin, for a fascinating post.
I am coming into this discussion rather late, but most of the previous responses have been re-hashing of stuff that appears over and over endlessly. I have myself tried to refute Starlight and Time, but it keeps rearing its ugly head, and no doubt will continue to do so.
Getting back to the original post, I have one confusion. You state '5.8 million years ago the orbits converged to almost the exact same orbit'. Now if the original body/conglomerate started to diffuse at this point, why didn't it start ten million years ago, or three thousand million? The major planets have been there a long time!
Alternatively, if the diffusion was caused by an impact, then the orbits should not converge on a particular orbit, because there would be a discontinuity in their orbits at this point. They should converge on a particular LOCATION, not a common ORBIT.
Was this just a bad choice of words, or is there something I do not understand?
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Harlequin, posted 02-22-2004 3:34 PM Harlequin 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