Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 76 of 95 (157112)
11-08-2004 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RoseBudd
11-07-2004 9:59 PM


Hi Rose Bud
But the way I see it, is that even though scientists try to use science to disprove God, it does just the opposite.
Hi Rose Bud. Thanks for joining and I hope you hang around.
But the way I see it, is that even though scientists try to use science to disprove God, it does just the opposite.
You make the point that I got in so much of a hassle trying to make due to my post #8. Science keeps coming up with multiplied complexities within the complex, such as DNA, the highly complex nervous system and how a hundred billion neurons syncronize among themselves to make the brain do it thing -- all this stuff and millions more examples of this complex stuff and these people wonder why we creationists can't swallow their illogical theories. Intelligent minds are not immune to deception which is very powerful indeed!
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-08-2004 12:22 AM

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 77 of 95 (157114)
11-08-2004 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
11-08-2004 12:01 AM


Creationism and the 2nd law
A little of your post brings up the point of the second law.
You brought it up in post 13 for the first time. By post 25 you had been given a site that gives a lot of detail and a definition of it.
After pointing out to you that you shouldn't have mentioned it I would expect you to drop the whole thing. Instead you kept going and going. You think that it is going to be ignored.
The 2nd law is still plastered on web sites that have had time to know better. I, for one, won't ignore the dishonest misuse of science by them. If you wish to perpetuate that misuse then I won't ignore it here either.
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.
Ok it was an off the cuff remark. I kinda knew that. When it was first pointed out to you that it didn't matter to the issue at hand a good response would have been:
"You're right, it was just a quick off-the-cuff remark. I shouldn't have stuffed it in there."
It was your dragging it out and not doing that that has made you look a bit foolish. Much more foolish than being wrong about the 2nd law.
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?
There is nothing in your creationist viewpoint that you have brought up that has anything to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law is a scientific concept. Why do you mention the creationist view then? This is the sort of thing that is "obfuscating".
You've run out of things to comment on the 2nd law after having thrown it out. We did the open, closed issue, the energy from the sun issue and so on. All of them attempts by you to keep bringing up some relevance of the 2nd law.
Now that we've finished with going over that you're bringing up creationism but have yet to explain why it matters here.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-08-2004 12:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2004 12:01 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2004 12:49 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2004 1:06 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 95 (157117)
11-08-2004 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by NosyNed
11-08-2004 12:21 AM


Re: Creationism and the 2nd law
It was your dragging it out and not doing that that has made you look a bit foolish. Much more foolish than being wrong about the 2nd law.
Ned, for the first time in this whole thread would you please show me wherein anything false or off topic was posted in messages 8 and 13?
If not, why was I drawn into having to answer all this stuff you people threw out at me thereafter?
After pointing out to you that you shouldn't have mentioned it I would expect you to drop the whole thing. Instead you kept going and going. You think that it is going to be ignored.
Yah sure. Sure Ned. Have you forgotten what I'm accused of when I drop stuff and don't respond? Hmmm? I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Right? Right. I MUST keep going when you people keep throwing stuff at me and demanding answers. Had YOU PEOPLE, not OBFUSCATED in response to my posts 8 and 13, YOU'D have made to the point responses and moved on YOURSELVES, leaving me free to either leave the thread or address other on topic stuff in the thread.
THE ACCUSITIVE FINGER YOU ARE POINTING AT ME LEAVES THREE FINGERS POINTING RIGHT BACK AT YOURSELF.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 11-08-2004 12:21 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by NosyNed, posted 11-08-2004 2:00 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 11-08-2004 3:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 79 of 95 (157118)
11-08-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
11-05-2004 8:02 PM


brain too complex...
buz writes:
[Natural selection] can only eliminate or select existing information for the good of the organism. For example, bright grouse or certain bright fish are easily detected by predators. In areas where they are among numerous predators, the brightest ones would tend to be eliminated and the darker of them would tend to survive and reproduce darker offspring.
Buz, how would natural selection work in those same fish, if a subset had a few extra neurons that allowed them quicker reaction time or better ability to identify safe havens from predators?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 8:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2004 10:32 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 95 (157121)
11-08-2004 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by NosyNed
11-08-2004 12:21 AM


Go figure.
Now that we've finished with going over that you're bringing up creationism but have yet to explain why it matters here.
The topic title is not Why Does Creation Matter?
The topic title is , Does Science Support Creationism.
My posts number 8 and 13 are my answers to the topic question. I have stated my reason and creationist Rose Bud has succinctly worded a statement, supportive to my point. That's how we creationists think. You need to get used to it and try to be more tolerant to our modus operende.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-08-2004 01:09 AM

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 11-08-2004 12:21 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 11-08-2004 1:18 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 81 of 95 (157124)
11-08-2004 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Buzsaw
11-08-2004 1:06 AM


Re: Go figure.
Well, in neither message is there anything related to science supporting creationism.
Message 8 simply is an unsupported assertion.
Again, in Message 13 (where you first mention the 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics) there is also nothing related to science supporting creationism.
That's how we creationists think.
No one doubts that.
But in neither message did you post anything related to the thread.
So a direct question.
Can you show an example of science supporting creationism?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2004 1:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 82 of 95 (157129)
11-08-2004 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Buzsaw
11-08-2004 12:49 AM


Re: Creationism and the 2nd law
Yah sure. Sure Ned. Have you forgotten what I'm accused of when I drop stuff and don't respond? Hmmm? I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Right? Right.
Now, Buz, I even suggested how you could have "dropped it". Now you are being deliberately silly. All you had to do was admit that you shouldn't have brought it up. Something which you still have not done.
Ned, for the first time in this whole thread would you please show me wherein anything false or off topic was posted in messages 8 and 13?
You continue to try to be devious (just not very successfully). No where have I mentioned the 2nd law being off topic. The original suggestion that the 2nd law as in any way pertinant was what was false. The continued dragging it out rather than admint that it didn't apply was disingenuous at best. Limiting it to post 8 and 13 is meaningless.
You haven't answered the question regarding the applicabilness of your creationism to the 2nd law yet.
As noted within about a dozen posts of your bringing the 2nd law up you had a detailed explanation of it available. You were told, very simply, that it didn't apply within a post or so. You said you understood it but were asking me about it for reasons you never did tell us about.
Now that you have run out of attempts to bring the second law in you are going all over the map without admiting that you shouldn't have tried.
Had YOU PEOPLE, not OBFUSCATED in response to my posts 8 and 13, YOU'D have made to the point responses and moved on YOURSELVES, leaving me free to either leave the thread or address other on topic stuff in the thread.
It is precisely because you do this kind of thing frequently that I don't feel like letting it go until you admit to a small error. As noted you were given all you needed to know about the 2nd law within a short time of asking for it. Though why you asked when you told us you knew it already you still haven't explained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2004 12:49 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 83 of 95 (157138)
11-08-2004 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RoseBudd
11-07-2004 9:59 PM


Right.
You are correct, up to a point. Science can't prove creationism, which is the point of this.
I am writing this without reading the next ten posts, which likely make these same points, so forgive me if I am pedantic. I simply want to replyto you myself.
First, you are mixing up your sciences rather a lot. The Big Bang is one thing, biogenesis another and information theory something else again.
I will focus on the information theory part of your reply. The first thing I think we have to do is agree what information is, then we can decide if what you say about it is accurate. How fo you define information?
According to information theory, and using it's definition (which I will supply later if needed), information is created every day. Turn your radio on and set it between stations. Listen to the static. That is much more information there then in a dna sequence.

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 84 of 95 (157139)
11-08-2004 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RoseBudd
11-07-2004 9:59 PM


quote:
But the way I see it, is that even though scientists try to use science to disprove God, it does just the opposite.
You may see it that way, but for your opinion to be worth anything you would have to actually know the relevant science.
quote:
For example, the big bang theory. It says that life just came to be over time..
No, it does not. It says absolutely nothing about the origin of life.
quote:
..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...
Again you're wrong. There is no requirement for DNA to "create itself". Indeed the current view of many scientists working on the origin of life is that DNA evolved in RNA-based life.
As for the question of information creatign itself you don't offer any suggestion of what you consider to be "information" but it seems that pretty much any chemical reaction that produced a product that was somehow more complex would do. If that's the case then there is absolutely no problem - it happens all the time.

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 85 of 95 (157144)
11-08-2004 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Buzsaw
11-08-2004 12:49 AM


Re: Creationism and the 2nd law
Message 8 represents a statement of opinion. Technically the only way ti could be false is if you did not really believe it. As to whether your opinion is correct - well we're still waiting for you to offer any real support for it. So far we've seen no sign of a solid basis at all.
Message 13 claims that the 2LoT is somehow relevant - and we're still waiting for a real explanation of THAT.
IF you want a clear falsehood the implication that your opinion is based on thought. logic and common sense is one. Obviously you haven't thought about the issue, applied logic to it or even had the common sense to realise that uninformed guesses are hardly a reliable way of forming opinions.
On the other hand I note that my Message 38 has not been answered at all.
Let me point out that there is a difference between taking a gracious exit, admitting that your opinions lack a real scientific foundation, and simply stopping posting to the thread. The former is open to you and you would be more likely praised than criticised for taking it.
Of course you apparently feel that that option is not open to you. When your opinions are shown to be indefensible the only alternative to running away that YOU can accept is hurling false accusations at your opponents:
quote:
. Had YOU PEOPLE, not OBFUSCATED in response to my posts 8 and 13, YOU'D have made to the point responses and moved on YOURSELVES, leaving me free to either leave the thread or address other on topic stuff in the thread.
THE ACCUSITIVE FINGER YOU ARE POINTING AT ME LEAVES THREE FINGERS POINTING RIGHT BACK AT YOURSELF.
So long as you use low tactics like this instead of honest debate you have no grounds for complaint when your behaviour is criticised. How can you possibly justify making groundless attacks on your opponents while refusing to accept truthful criticisms of your own behaviour ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2004 12:49 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19810 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 86 of 95 (157171)
11-08-2004 7:04 AM


It's all getting a bit heated. Buz, I think the best thing to do is to restate your assertion as to what science supports creationism, so we can move past these accusations of people not replying to points.
How about the account in genesis which puts the order of creation as plants-birds-aquatic animals-land animals-man? That fits with the fossil evidence quite well.
That could be considered as scientific evidence that the genesis account is accurate to some degree, therefore substantiating (though not directly proving) ideas of a creator.

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Coragyps, posted 11-08-2004 9:42 AM Jon_the_Second has not replied

  
Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19810 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 87 of 95 (157172)
11-08-2004 7:08 AM


Or for that matter miracles.
If a miracle is defined as an event contrary to naturalistic explanations and ammendments to naturalistic theories cannot solve the problem, then this is indicative of supernaturalistic events - which support (again indirectly) the basic premise of a creator.

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by AdminAsgara, posted 11-08-2004 7:15 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 88 of 95 (157195)
11-08-2004 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Jon_the_Second
11-08-2004 7:04 AM


Hi, Jon! Welcome!
You wrote
How about the account in genesis which puts the order of creation as plants-birds-aquatic animals-land animals-man? That fits with the fossil evidence quite well.
Whose fossil record do you claim this order "fits with?" It's not remotely close to any order that palaeontologists have proposed in the last 180 years or so.
This is, in fact, a stunningly good example of reality disagreeing with Genesis.

El sueo de la razn produce monstruos. - Francisco Goya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-08-2004 7:04 AM Jon_the_Second has not replied

  
Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19810 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 89 of 95 (157219)
11-08-2004 10:08 AM


Just trying to think from a creationist point of view.
It has the general idea - simplicity to complexity, Humans last. Aside from the bizarre genesis obsession with "waters" the construction of the universe follows, very roughly, the order cosmology puts it in.

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Coragyps, posted 11-08-2004 11:02 AM Jon_the_Second has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 90 of 95 (157247)
11-08-2004 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Jon_the_Second
11-08-2004 10:08 AM


Oh, but it doesn't "have the general idea" at all! Land critters preceded birds by 200 million years or so. Sea creatures preceded herbs and grass by at least 400 million years - 3 billion years if you let stromatolite-forming bacteria count as creatures. It's utterly backasswards. It's mistaken. Wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-08-2004 10:08 AM Jon_the_Second 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