Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science support creationism?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 95 (156788)
11-06-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by tsig
11-06-2004 6:00 PM


Re: Explanation response.
Buz,the content of your posts argue against the comlexity of the human mind.
AHAH!! As I think about it, you're right! My hypothesis should make earth an OPEN system, since the Creator, existing outside the system actually reverses entropy to decrease the totality of it by creation of light and head via creating the sun on day four, etc. Entropy was decreased when the totality of it's heat and light rose due to power from outside it's system.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-06-2004 06:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 6:00 PM tsig has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 11-06-2004 8:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 62 of 95 (156803)
11-06-2004 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
11-04-2004 10:33 PM


Re: Support??
I didn't say there was never decrease in entropy now, did I? On the other hand, how much order and decrease of entropy, moving contrary to the tendency of the scientific law, can one observe on one itty bitty planet and still say 2ltd is still operative??
When you die your complex brain will return to a much less complex state, so the ultimate operation of the 2ltd will be vindicated. We only get a brief time under the sun, then we return from where we have come.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 10:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 63 of 95 (156806)
11-06-2004 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by AdminJar
11-06-2004 6:04 PM


Re: Not needed.
Does that post advance the discussion in any way? If not, it should be dropped.
Read buz's reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AdminJar, posted 11-06-2004 6:04 PM AdminJar has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 64 of 95 (156816)
11-06-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by AdminNosy
11-06-2004 6:04 PM


Re: Uncalled for
Sure you understood what I meant. This seems like an overreaction. I've seen people call others ignorant with no moderator input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AdminNosy, posted 11-06-2004 6:04 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AdminNosy, posted 11-06-2004 8:04 PM tsig has not replied

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


Message 65 of 95 (156841)
11-06-2004 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by tsig
11-06-2004 7:10 PM


Re: Uncalled for
I've seen people call others ignorant with no moderator input.
So? We sure aren't going to catch 'em all. Additionally, "ignornant" is not really an insult. It is perfectly acceptable to not be knowledgeable about an area.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-06-2004 08:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 7:10 PM tsig has not replied

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


Message 66 of 95 (156842)
11-06-2004 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Buzsaw
11-06-2004 6:26 PM


Science, Buz
AHAH!! As I think about it, you're right! My hypothesis should make earth an OPEN system, since the Creator, existing outside the system actually reverses entropy to decrease the totality of it by creation of light and head via creating the sun on day four, etc. Entropy was decreased when the totality of it's heat and light rose due to power from outside it's system.
Since there is no need to introduce a "Creator" to overcome any thermodynamic issues for the origin or creation of life on Earth we have no need of that hypothosis at this point.
The thread topic, Buz is using science to support creationism. You have been attempting to misuse science to attack evolutionary theory. That has nothing to do with supporting creationism.
Could you now do a couple of things:
Admit that you shouldn't have brought the second law up at all.
Give us some science in support of creationism.
Thanks.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-06-2004 08:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 11-06-2004 6:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 11-06-2004 9:29 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 11-06-2004 9:29 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 95 (156859)
11-06-2004 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NosyNed
11-06-2004 8:08 PM


Re: Science, Buz
I think it was relevant to the topic, but if it bothers you that much, I'll find something else to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 11-06-2004 8:08 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2004 1:46 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 95 (156860)
11-06-2004 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NosyNed
11-06-2004 8:08 PM


Re: Science, Buz
double post.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-06-2004 09:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 11-06-2004 8:08 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 69 of 95 (156965)
11-07-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
11-06-2004 9:29 PM


Something else
Buz, didn't we have a whole thread on your behavior in discussions?
The 2nd law issue doesn't "bother me" all that much. However, if you again just duck out when you have been shown to be in error without being polite about it that would "bother me".
Why do you have such a hard time admitting to a reasonably small error? The inability to recognize error on your part will prevent you from learning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 11-06-2004 9:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 11-07-2004 6:21 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 95 (157027)
11-07-2004 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NosyNed
11-07-2004 1:46 PM


Re: Something else
=Why do you have such a hard time admitting to a reasonably small error? The inability to recognize error on your part will prevent you from learning.
I believe I admitted to two errors. Sometime you're gona make you're first one and then what? LOL. If your care to copy and paste any other specific statements you know to be false, be my guest. Don't forget, you're debating a Biblical creationist who believes in the supernatural. I should think that you'd not expect us to post our hypotheses on the basis of your ideology. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of this nonsense that I don't know how to behave on these forums. I'm not Mr perfect as you seem to think you are, Ned. The difference between me and some here in town is that I do admit my errors when I become convinced I am indeed in error. So please refrain from these rebukes as if I'm your kid and get specific. Then we'll talk. Why do I have to be having you moderate me when you're posting along with the rest? If you want to admonish me, get your big nose avitar up there and give me heck. Otherwise, please get the heck off my back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2004 1:46 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2004 6:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 71 of 95 (157033)
11-07-2004 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
11-07-2004 6:21 PM


Re: Something else
Sometime you're gona make you're first one and then what?
Ha! Do you mean today? The only reason why I may not need to admit to an error all that often is I'm rather cautious about saying things I don't have a bit of assurance about. That is I make fewer off the cuff assertions so I'm wrong a bit less often. However, I still manage to make statements that I'm sure about and find I had mis-remembered something. Doesn't bother me too much actually and I certainly don't get upset when someone points out my error. It is usually a matter of "thanks for that".
I believe I admitted to two errors.
It wasn't clear to me that you admitted to any errors at all. Where was that? I may have missed it in all the posts.
Don't forget, you're debating a Biblical creationist who believes in the supernatural. I should think that you'd not expect us to post our hypotheses on the basis of your ideology.
In this case, I don't see that your beliefs have anything to do with it. Why did you bring them up?
This is a topic about science supporting creationism. You used a scientific concept in bring up the 2nd law (among other things).
It may appear that I am moderating but we can all point out to others when they could improve. Why so sensitive? If you want me to put up a separate post as AdminNosy I will but I don't see why it has to be hammered down so hard as that. It's just a minor note. As well, I'm not saying it as a moderator nor suggesting that you have to listen to what I'm saying.
... and get specific.
About what? Where you were in error? I didn't see you agree that you should not have brought up the 2nd law. Then dragging it out compounded that error.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-07-2004 06:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 11-07-2004 6:21 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2004 12:01 AM NosyNed has replied

  
RoseBudd
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 95 (157079)
11-07-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mikehager
10-20-2004 1:14 PM


I think I understand your question...what I think you are saying is how can someone use science to defend believing in God, when science really wasn't ment to do that. But the way I see it, is that even though scientists try to use science to disprove God, it does just the opposite. For example, the big bang theory. It says that life just came to be over time...but if that was true, then the first strand of DNA would have had to create itself, meaning that information would have had to create itself...and if that is true, then there should be millions of examples of information creating itself. If you can give me one, that would be great. That's how I see it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mikehager, posted 10-20-2004 1:14 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2004 10:02 PM RoseBudd has not replied
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2004 10:35 PM RoseBudd has not replied
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2004 12:20 AM RoseBudd has not replied
 Message 83 by mikehager, posted 11-08-2004 2:41 AM RoseBudd has not replied
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 11-08-2004 2:42 AM RoseBudd has not replied

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


Message 73 of 95 (157080)
11-07-2004 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RoseBudd
11-07-2004 9:59 PM


But the way I see it, is that even though scientists try to use science to disprove God, it does just the opposite.
I'm sorry, when have scientists ever tried to do that?
That would be a very surprising thing for scientists to do, since most of them believe in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RoseBudd, posted 11-07-2004 9:59 PM RoseBudd has not replied

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


Message 74 of 95 (157086)
11-07-2004 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RoseBudd
11-07-2004 9:59 PM


Proving creationism, not disproving biology etc
I'm not sure that anyone has been on topic here yet.
It seems that many think that trying to poke holes in various scientific conclusions does something to "prove" creationism.
This thread is not titled "Using Science to Disprove Biology, Physics or Geology".
If someone want so use the scientific process to support the creastionist view it would be more on topic. For that creationism would have to be expressed as a scientific theory with it's own different predictions and a way to falsify it. That doesn't seem to have been tried yet.
For example, the big bang theory. It says that life just came to be over time...but if that was true, then the first strand of DNA would have had to create itself, meaning that information would have had to create itself...and if that is true, then there should be millions of examples of information creating itself. If you can give me one, that would be great. That's how I see it...
RoseBud, you will have to be careful to get your facts straight. The big band theory says nothing at all aobut how life came to be.
As well, none of the chemists interesting in the origin of life (that I know of) suggest that DNA was the first form of life. They agree with you that DNA is an unlikely first replicator.
And, on top of all that, you must be careful in using the word "information" unless you know what it is. There have been a number of discussions about it here. I think it is safe to say that anything you have been told about it is wrong.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-07-2004 10:41 PM
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-07-2004 10:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RoseBudd, posted 11-07-2004 9:59 PM RoseBudd has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 95 (157108)
11-08-2004 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by NosyNed
11-07-2004 6:43 PM


Re: Something else
Buz:
... and get specific.
Ned:
About what?
About the specific post that is allegedly in error and specifically what in that post that is false.
Where you were in error?
See? There you go again. Where I was in error and what specific thing in my post was erroneous?
I didn't see you agree that you should not have brought up the 2nd law. Then dragging it out compounded that error.
Why, pray tell, should I agree that I shouldn't have debated the TOPIC on the basis of MY OWN creationist ideology and not on your ideology??
Buz Message 8: The more complexity which science has discovered and researched, the more I consider NS to be utterly impossible and the evidence of an existing infinitely super-intelligent creator actively managing the universe.
From a post of a counterpart I could see need for clarification so I posted this:
Buz Message13: The point of my post #8 is that the complexity of science is what drives my logic that there's simply way too much complexity for NS to have been keeping on keeping on for hundreds of millions and billions of years to produce soooooo much complexity and design in a universe which in which 2ltd is suppose to be operating.
Now, why, oh why have we been wasting all these hours and bandwith, tangoing all the way off the topic ballroom floor with peripherals? It takes more than one to tango, you know, and it wasn't buz who asked for this dance.
Buz, didn't we have a whole thread on your behavior in discussions?
The thread was about who obfuscates in this town, and neither you, nor Percy nor Schrafinator, nor anyone else addressed the specifics of the op of that thread. Instead we did another multi-page tango about an off the cuff statement I made, with my meanspirited accusers INSISTING on keeping on keeping on with this, doing their dead level best to make a fool outa buz, the fundie creo. I repeatedly asked for specifics of them as to where I obfuscated any more than anyone else in town and noone produced noone. In the op, I made some pertinent statements about when we all quit threads, but no, they didn't want to talk about that. All they, like you wanted was to MAKE THE CREO LOOK FOOLISH. So if you go back and read that thread I think you'll find that my behaviour has not been as bad as you people would like for the www to think it is. Some of the crap I get from some of my counterparts has been worse.
The 2nd law issue doesn't "bother me" all that much. However, if you again just duck out when you have been shown to be in error without being polite about it that would "bother me".
LOL!! You must think I'm some kind of jellyfish creo or something, Ned or maybe a doormat that you think you can wipe your dirty shoes on. Nor am I a duck that ducks out when you keep throwing out these generalized insinuations that I don't know how to debate in forums.
Why do you have such a hard time admitting to a reasonably small error? The inability to recognize error on your part will prevent you from learning.
I have a hard time keeping on topic when I continually am drawn off by you people, when you all began quizzing me on other stuff in your desperate attempt to make me state something erroneous. To make it simple, I asked you a very simple question, whether 2ltd was operative in the universe or not. Rather than answering briefly and forthrightly, AS I REQUESTED YOU DO, you and your idiological friends EVASIVELY OBFUSCATED the question and off we all went out in left field with all this off topic stuff.
The first one was addressing you in message 49 and the 2nd was in message 61, addressing Flying Hawk.
In this case, I don't see that your beliefs have anything to do with it. Why did you bring them up?
Had you cut and pasted message 8 and message 13 and stayed on topic by addressing them specifically AS STATED you should have understood why this BIBLICAL CREATIONIST brought them up.
This is a topic about science supporting creationism. You used a scientific concept in bring up the 2nd law (among other things).
Can you spell c r e a t i o n i s m? I was debating as a creationist, and not as an evolutionist. Get it?
It may appear that I am moderating but we can all point out to others when they could improve. Why so sensitive?
Because I quite often get this from some of you people, especially you, Percy and Schrafinator and I, for the life of me, cannot see where I am such a notoriously bad poster here in town so as to have you people constantly reminding me of these generalized unspecified accusations, inuendos, insinuations claims you are making about my behavior. The problem with you people is not, so much my behavior as it is my Biblical ideology which you people can't tolerate. That, imo, is your real bone of contention and when at times, you find it difficult to deal with my ideology, you resort to personal belittlement.
(I have addressed two of your messages in one to tie it all in perspectively.)
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-08-2004 12:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2004 6:43 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 11-08-2004 12:21 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024