Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
147 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 146 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 869,795 Year: 1,543/23,288 Month: 1,543/1,851 Week: 183/484 Day: 1/105 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debating evolution
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 61 of 91 (311344)
05-12-2006 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by SR71
05-11-2006 10:33 PM


With that said how does a single cell organism without a thought process and logic evolve a logic that is able to comprehend and learn.

For one thing, it seems he is asking a (normal for creationiist) misunderstanding -- how a complete system evolved in one species all at once. They don't, the evolve piecemeal over the lifetimes of many many individuals, but also over the lifetimes of species.

For another, his is mistaken that humans are the only ones. Not just our near relatives that are now extinct (Neanderthals and others) but a wide assortment of species show logical ability. You even have monkeys with a sense of "fairness" --

Researchers studying brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) have found that the highly social, cooperative species native to South America show a sense of fairness, the first time such behavior has been documented in a species other than humans.

Capuchin monkeys are the stereotype "organ grinder" monkeys, btw. Quite small.

Another aspect is art:
http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html

We are not alone, we just happen to have the most developed (that we know of) brain.

Communicating with another species is more a matter of communicating than of having someone to talk to.

How does this evolve? Slowly, over time, with each step of awareness and then cognition improvement selected by increased ability to survive. It doesn't need to all "happen" in one species.


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 10:33 PM SR71 has not yet responded

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 4604 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 62 of 91 (311378)
05-12-2006 10:25 AM


I told him, thanks to Talk.Origins, that his argument is based on the assumption that the sun has always been decreasing. So he told me this:

quote:
Simple as this man. E=Mc squared. Energy equals mass. The sun is dispersing heat energy and so its mass is slowly decreasing. I never said that the sun's decreasing mass had anything to do with the tides. Common sence. Energy equals mass, disperson of Energy equals dispersion of mass. Here is the link that states the 1 tenth a percent.http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap06.htm

(Am I right to say that he is completely misusing the theory of relativity??}


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NosyNed, posted 05-12-2006 10:49 AM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 66 by jar, posted 05-12-2006 11:04 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8893
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 63 of 91 (311382)
05-12-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by SR71
05-12-2006 10:25 AM


Shrinking sun
Up thread Coryagyps (see Message 43linked to a post elsewhere that showed some E=mc**2 calculations. The sun is losing mass at the rate of millions of tons a second to produce energy.

However, the calculations given suggest that in 5 billion years it would loose abou 6 % of it's mass.

If he is trying to use this to suggest a young earth he is wrong. But he is right about the conversion of mass to energy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 10:25 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 4604 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 64 of 91 (311383)
05-12-2006 10:49 AM


It's interesting. Whenever I thoroughly pommel his arguments, he turns to something like "but my source is NASA and your source is just scientists."

Proof is proof.


Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 05-12-2006 10:57 AM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2006 8:16 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8893
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 65 of 91 (311385)
05-12-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by SR71
05-12-2006 10:49 AM


Sources
It's interesting. Whenever I thoroughly pommel his arguments, he turns to something like "but my source is NASA and your source is just scientists."

Proof is proof.

LOL, and what is this "NASA"? Is it the oracle that dispense all wisdom? Is it perhaps an organization with a lot of scientists working in it.

It is useful to know your sources and may allow you to short circuit the critical process to save time (or if you simply don't have the skills to critique the work) however it doesn't matter who the heck the source is: what are the reasons for the conclusions? Do they stand up?

Of course, his source is NOT NASA either. It is some liar lifting a quote from somewhere out of context.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 10:49 AM SR71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by EZscience, posted 05-12-2006 11:12 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32037
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 66 of 91 (311387)
05-12-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by SR71
05-12-2006 10:25 AM


Creationists don't read.
One thing that you need to understand is that Creationists don't read the same way most folk do. They exhibit what I call, wilfull ignorance. That is, they select only that evidence that supports their position and wilfully ignore all the evidence that refutes their position. If your little friend had read the full article he gave you, he would have found the link at the bottom pointing out that since 2001 experiments have shown that the missing neutrinos have been found.

Look at the text for the last link on the very page he pointed you towards. The text admits that all of the proceeding rant was wrong, but it's only a footnote, no effort was made to correct the mass of misinformation in the article itself. Their link does not work since it simply pointed to some press release and not, as you would expect, to Sudbury itself. You can though get to Sudbury directly. It is at Sudbury Neutrino Observatory and the results are found at Sudbury Salt Phase Results and shows not only that the intial findings were correct but that subsequent findings have supported and refined those intitial ones.

In addition, the very last line on the page:

The implications of this development for estimates of the sun’s age and operating mechanism will have to await further analysis by scientists who are open to the possibility that the data points to a young sun.

shows a classic example of creationist wilfull ignorance.

The data is the data. The preconceived notions of investigators has nothing to do with the issue. ALL of the available data simply points to an old universe and none of the data points to a young universe.

Most of the Biblical Creationists sites simply lie. They seem to believe that lying for Jesus is not just acceptable practice, it is the desired mode of propaganda.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 10:25 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3542 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 67 of 91 (311389)
05-12-2006 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by NosyNed
05-12-2006 10:57 AM


NASA
Nosy writes:

...what is this "NASA"? Is it the oracle that dispense all wisdom?

Hilarious.

More like a crumbling government agency with more failures than successes to its credit over the past twenty years, bloated with bureacracy, and apparently lacking any kind of visionary leadership. Whatever scientific knowledge they have actually generated, you can be sure they aren't sharing it with anyone publicly under the current administration.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 05-12-2006 10:57 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 4604 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 68 of 91 (311393)
05-12-2006 11:23 AM


I disprove his main points so instead of continuing to defend them, he simply brings in more. The good news is that he will eventually run out of things for me to disprove.

quote:
Evolutionists teach that red giant stars chang into white dwarf stars over millions of years; yet sirius is an example of a red star becoming a white within the past 2,000 years. Ancient astronomers described Sirius as glowing red in the sky, Yet now it is categorized as white. So this proves that evolutionists teachings on this are wrong and makes there other findings questionable.

Jupiter and Saturn, these two planets radiate more heat then they recieve from the sun. If they were billions of years old, both planets would have reached equilibrium and no longer be able to lose more hear then they recieve. So this is revelent cause this means that the universe itself is younger then it seems. Which means that it is more fiting towards biblical times then Evolutionists times.

The water in the ocean contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, compost of elemnts sodium and chlorine, is the the primary mineral. For years scientis have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are are deposited into the oceans anualy, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.

Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and Global flood. If applied to the evolutionists time frame of millions of years the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liveral estimates the salinity levels are maximum possible age of 62 million years. Not possible for 4.6 billion years. Which makes evolutionists beliefs false.


EDIT: PS - with spelling like this, I'd question any of his findings.

This message has been edited by SR71, 05-12-2006 11:26 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 05-12-2006 11:36 AM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 70 by jar, posted 05-12-2006 11:40 AM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 05-12-2006 11:45 AM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Quetzal, posted 05-12-2006 12:02 PM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 78 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2006 11:05 PM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2006 8:23 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8893
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 69 of 91 (311398)
05-12-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by SR71
05-12-2006 11:23 AM


A higher view
You might suggest that you and he start keeping a score card. If I kept using things from a particular source that were shown to be wrong and wrong and wrong again I'd consider that maybe they were not a reliable source.

He will not run out. He will forget and bring the same things up again.

The salt one might even be one that a major young earth site suggest should not be used.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 11:23 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32037
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 70 of 91 (311400)
05-12-2006 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by SR71
05-12-2006 11:23 AM


I disprove his main points so instead of continuing to defend them, he simply brings in more.

Yup, Gish Gallop.

The good news is that he will eventually run out of things for me to disprove.

You wish. While it does appear that God may have set some limit on how intellegent or knowledgeable an individual may become, there is no limit on stupidity.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 11:23 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6856
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 71 of 91 (311402)
05-12-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by SR71
05-12-2006 11:23 AM


quote:
I disprove his main points so instead of continuing to defend them, he simply brings in more. The good news is that he will eventually run out of things for me to disprove.

Heh. Note how much time and effort it takes you to thoroughly answer each of his points, and how little effort it takes for him to dump a dozen more on you. He has a good chance of winning the "debate" unless you are very, very patient.

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 12-May-2006 03:45 PM


"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 11:23 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4260 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 72 of 91 (311404)
05-12-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by SR71
05-12-2006 11:23 AM


Here's a link on the salt thingy: linky.

Would you please ask him why he's dragging in all those non-evolutionary topics? If he's going to argue evolution is wrong and all, shouldn't he be talking biology (and its myriad subdisciplines) or ecology (and ITS subdisciplines)? And ask him to please stop cribbing from Kent Hovind's website - Hovind's junk are all PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times). They're almost too easy. Your friend needs to get some new material.

The good news is that he will eventually run out of things for me to disprove.

Wrong, I'm afraid. Hovind alone has over 50 of 'em. The Gish Gallop (named in honor of Duane Gish, one of the true creationist masters at the game) is practically indefatiguable. And all of them are as wrong as the ones you've already presented. Good luck.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 11:23 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 4604 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 73 of 91 (311603)
05-12-2006 8:49 PM


How can I go about proof that non-living materials can come together and form a living organism? He keeps telling me that I skip it every time he brings it up.

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by BMG, posted 05-12-2006 9:01 PM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 75 by jar, posted 05-12-2006 9:03 PM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 76 by Chiroptera, posted 05-12-2006 9:23 PM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2006 8:29 AM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Quetzal, posted 05-13-2006 8:47 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 2551 days)
Posts: 356
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 74 of 91 (311611)
05-12-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by SR71
05-12-2006 8:49 PM


Hello
Hi SR71.

SR71 writes:

How can I go about proof that non-living materials can come together and form a living organism?

From what little I understand, you shouldn't have to. The Theory of Evolution does not explain nor attempt to explain the origin of life. Rather, it is a theory on the history of life.

Your friend is referring to Abiogenesis, which is a separate topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 8:49 PM SR71 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32037
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 75 of 91 (311613)
05-12-2006 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by SR71
05-12-2006 8:49 PM


You can't yet

But then he relies on the same thing. He says GODDIDIT and you say Nature did it.

That one is just a wait and see.

That move is called God of the Gaps. For a long time folk said God was in the thunderstrom, or earthquake or volcano. Gradually we found out what caused those. No God. If he wants to pin his hopes on creating life, he will find that during his lifetime that gap too gets closed.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 8:49 PM SR71 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020