Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 301 (434085)
11-14-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 10:06 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Evolutionism is not, at the moment, a proven fact of our history and our past.
Yes it is.
You may not have seen the proof, but this is not to say that there isn't any. It means that you've got all your beliefs about the subject from creationist websites.
is a belief to say "I am an unproved cosmic coincadence of millions of years of evolution from a cell," not to say, "The earth is flat." You see, statement A is unproved, therefore requiring belief, statement B is proved, not requiring belief.
You should have proof-read that more carefully.
Also, why is it nonesense that nobody can prove what happened billions, millions, or even ten thousand years ago? Please elaborate.
Because we can look at the evidence that exists now to find out about what happened in the past.
If, in order to deny evolution, you have to deny that it is possible to know anything at all about the past "because we weren't there", then don't you see how desperate your situation is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 10:06 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 301 (434100)
11-14-2007 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by dwise1
11-14-2007 12:46 PM


75%?
Kent Hovind quotes an anti-public school film, "Let My Children Go", in his claim: "75% of all children raised in Christian homes who attend public schools will reject the Christian faith by their first year of college."
75%? Really?
I suppose it's just possible that Kent Hovind has, at some point in his life, told the truth about something, but I wouldn't bet on this being it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by dwise1, posted 11-14-2007 12:46 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by dwise1, posted 11-14-2007 2:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 134 of 301 (435758)
11-22-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by theLimmitt
11-22-2007 3:17 PM


Well that dosn't really make sence does it. It has the same amount of energy but it's just being broken up into diffrent peices, so if the big bang is correct then wouldn't all the planets be spinning the same way?
You seem to be mixing up the Big Bang with the formation of the Solar System, which happened billions of years later.
I think the creationist argument that you're mangling (or that Kent Hovind has mangled for you) is this one.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:17 PM theLimmitt has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 143 of 301 (435828)
11-23-2007 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by dwise1
11-23-2007 1:22 AM


Common sense tells us that what Hovind describes is true. Common sense also tells us that a when a ball rolling down a spiral track falls off the end, it would continue to move in a spiral motion through the air. But when you actually try it, you immediately find that the ball would exit that spiral track in a straight line.
I've been searching for the relevant psychology experiment --- do you have a reference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by dwise1, posted 11-23-2007 1:22 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by dwise1, posted 11-23-2007 3:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 148 of 301 (436480)
11-26-2007 12:52 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Taz, posted 11-26-2007 1:07 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 150 of 301 (436492)
11-26-2007 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Taz
11-26-2007 1:07 AM


Oh, and did I mention I got all 9... um 8 of the planets' names memorized in 4th grade? In order from the sun out: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Plu... and Neptune.
"Mark's violet eyes make Jane sit up nights pining."
How are you at geological periods?
"Cows often sit down carefully, perhaps their joints creak."
It would be easier if so many of them didn't begin with C.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Taz, posted 11-26-2007 1:07 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Taz, posted 11-26-2007 4:50 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 165 of 301 (442768)
12-22-2007 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Aquilegia753
12-22-2007 4:03 PM


Hint: Anything that you know about physics that's actually true will be known to physicists, who would have noticed if this was a valid critique of the Big Bang. In particular, I'm sure they are all familiar with the second law of motion.
What you mainly seem to have omitted is gravity.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-22-2007 4:03 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 166 of 301 (442769)
12-22-2007 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Aquilegia753
12-22-2007 4:06 PM


But don't evolutionists do the same thing?
No. Any other silly questions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-22-2007 4:06 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-22-2007 4:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 169 of 301 (442775)
12-22-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Aquilegia753
12-22-2007 4:21 PM


Re: Thread Reopened
There are a specific 20 that are needed for DNA to be created.
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-22-2007 4:21 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-22-2007 4:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 194 of 301 (442936)
12-23-2007 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Aquilegia753
12-22-2007 4:34 PM


Re: Thread Reopened
Even if I'm wrong, please watch this video and tell me how this could have evolved by chance.
Even without watching the video, I can tell you that things don't evolve by chance. Natural selection is also involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-22-2007 4:34 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 195 of 301 (442937)
12-23-2007 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Aquilegia753
12-22-2007 4:33 PM


There are many things that don't support evolution and do creation (see message 168). So, evolutionists (yes, I say 'evolutionists' because I feel that evolutionism is not a science, but a religion. I'll explain later) must take the evidence that supports evolutionism, and ignore those that don't.
No, there are many things that you believe don't support evolution and do creation. On examination, these beliefs turn out to be wrong.
Charles Darwin could be considered the 'inventor' of evolutionism. Now, being a scientific country, we like to base things on scientific evidence. Now, first, you have to prove something exists (to you). Being told that the sun exists if you live underground and have for your entire life, you don't know that it does. So, we have five senses to tell things exist. Has anybody here ever seen Darwin's brain, felt Darwin's brain, smelt, heard, or tasted his brain? Because nobody has done so, we cannot prove scientifically that Charles Darwin ever had a brain, and that his ideas had any validity. So, we must take them on faith of their origins. Faith without proof, because you cannot prove an idea if you cannot prove that the idea's origin ever existed.
So, now that I've scientifically broken science, I realize that I must take science at its word. I must trust that scientists have brains, and that they know what they are doing. Therefore, everybody in the world that trusts scientists need faith that they have brains. So, if you can trust humans' brains even if you have no proof that they exist, why can't you trust a God, even if you have no proof He exists? Because the latter is considered a religion, why can't the former be one too? They have the same definition.
Thank you, I can't stop giggling. This, truly, is a new twist on the ol' "science is a religion" nonsense.
A few points.
First, I do in fact have evidence that humans have brains.
Second, you write: "you cannot prove an idea if you cannot prove that the idea's origin ever existed".
I know that the idea had an origin (or do you suppose that the theory of evolution has existed for all eternity, world without end, amen?) and also I can, in fact, prove an idea true while knowing nothing of its origin. I can prove that 2 + 2 = 4 without knowing who thought of it first.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Aquilegia753, posted 12-22-2007 4:33 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 196 of 301 (442943)
12-23-2007 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Cold Foreign Object
12-22-2007 7:47 PM


The Emperor's New Clothes
The first thing you will learn about is the Emperor's New Clothes, which is a metaphoric story corresponding to society today.
One thing about that story that you might like to think about is that if you'd gone round all the people in the crowd and asked them to describe the clothes, they'd all have given radically different answers.
So, for example, you write:
I was attempting to say that whatever arguments are made to support a young earth I reject. Everything else is top notch stuff.
It's as though a man in the crowd was to say: "The emperor's flowing, elegant satin garments are flesh-pink. Now the guy standing next to me is convinced that his clothes are bright blue, but every other part of his description is top-notch stuff".
The last person to try this trope on me was one of the 9/11 Truth mob. I answered him as follows:
Dr Adequate writes:
Troofers: What beautiful clothes the Emperor's wearing!
Debunkers: Er, we're looking at him, and he's stark naked.
Troofer #1: Then how do you explain his satin garb of red and black checks?
Debunkers: But he's not wearing any clothes.
Troofer #2: There is abundant evidence that he's clad in garments of orange and ultraviolet striped cotton, but you won't admit it 'cos you're in denial.
Debunkers: And because we can't see them.
Troofer #3: His clothes are woven from silk of the purest sky blue pink. Any fool can see that.
Debunkers: Look, we can see all his naughty bits.
Troofer #4: No, I have scientific proof that he's wearing a costume fabricated out of microwave radiation by Keebler Elves.
Debunkers: But, look, the man is wearing nothing whatsoever. That's why you can't agree what he's wearing.
Troofers #1, #2, #3, and #4, in perfect unison: But at least we all agree that he is wearing clothes, unlike you poor brainwashed conformists.
I also wrote:
Dr Adequate writes:
A similar thing happens with Creationism, of course. I've seen them arguing that all sedimentary rocks were deposited by the Flood; that only some sedimentary rocks were deposited during the Flood; that sedimentary rocks were creating by God "in the beginning"; that such rocks all postdate the Flood; that there were no mountains before the Flood; that marine fossils were deposited on mountains during the Flood ... the one thing their gibberish has in common is that they all believe that there was a magic flood.
Meanwhile, those geologists who spend their entire professional lives studying rocks all agree that there was no magic flood, and they also agree about the details of geology. To extend the metaphor, they all independently agree on what tattoos the Emperor has on his butt.
We might call it the E.N.C. principle. Mindless conformity to a preconceived dogma which is not evidence based will agree on the dogma, but not on the details, and indeed will splinter into sects according to the details which they invent without evidence. By contrast, intelligent and open-minded people trying to make their ideas conform to reality by studying the evidence will be in pretty good agreement as to the details, because these details will be drawn from reality and conform with the evidence.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-22-2007 7:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 5:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 199 of 301 (443062)
12-23-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Buzsaw
12-23-2007 4:35 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
Evolutionism is in the dictionaries and all over the www. It's definition is the same as that of evolution for all practical purposes.
No.
Definition of evolutionism according to the free online dictionary:
You will notice that neither of those definitions is synonymous with "evolution", as you can easily see by substituting either such definition into sentences containing the word "evolution".
The word belief is another ligitimate word which evolutionists purposefully avoid for the same reason.
Actually they avoid it to prevent dishonest creationists from conflating it with "faith".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2007 4:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2007 5:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 204 of 301 (443075)
12-23-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Cold Foreign Object
12-23-2007 5:10 PM


Petitio Principii, A Game For Any Number Of Players
Okay, let's start with reality: the observation of design seen abundantly in nature and organisms.
design indicates Designer = evidence supporting Creationism based on observation, which is the cornerstone of science.
Okay, let's start with reality: the observation of adaptation seen abundantly in nature and organisms.
Adaptation indicates evolution = evidence supporting the theory of evolution based on observation, which is the cornerstone of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 5:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 205 of 301 (443076)
12-23-2007 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object
12-23-2007 5:28 PM


Re: The Emperor's New Clothes
It is of no surprise that you have missed the point or do not understand at all.
I have neither "missed the point" nor failed to "understand at all". I know perfectly well what you mean. I am pointing out that you are wrong, and that it is creationists who correspond to the believers in the Emperor's new clothes. This is why, as I pointed out, you are unable to agree amongst yourselves whether your Emperor is clad in orange velvet or purple silk or sky-blue pink cotton. You just agree that he has clothes, and very fine ones at that.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 5:28 PM Cold Foreign Object 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