Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 451 of 687 (523425)
09-10-2009 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by Rrhain
09-09-2009 8:01 PM


Can't deal with all of your post/s, too buzy.
Sometimes, such as with steady-state and spontaneous generation, that new information will cause us to reject the entire structure outright. The observations were crude at best and when we finally managed to get decent observations, it became clear that our gross interpretation was based upon highly limited information.
I know you didn't say what I said to you, I merely used your "type" or argument you usually use against me, promoting a strawman of what I did not say.
My point about science, is that at the very least you allude to the fact that I do not dismiss certain theories, such as gravity, because I assume you think I am biased.
Infact, all I am is extra-tentative. This means I can believe in your experiments, and their direct results, but I won't go a step further and believe an abiogenesis happened which is beyond reason. I also don't think a biological evolution happened. If it did, fine, then I am wrong - but wrong about what? That I didn't go that extra step and believe it happened? this doesn't mean I reject the whole theory, or any facts. Technically, I do accept them because I admitt that a transitional must be "allowed" otherwise I am creating an "unconfirmable" reasoning.
so I say; "then what would a transitional look like?" Yet this doesn't mean that a species put in that genus certainly was a transitional.
Theories are accepted, and then not. At the time, you would have believed in steady state and spontaneous generation. My point is that I wouldn't have, and we now know those theories to be wrong. So you shouldn't make out that I am rejecting science, or partaking in special pleading. I believe a bariminology is more parsimonious and plausable, at this time of my life.
(notice that at other times, I believe evolution theory more plausable).
But you have said that you find the literal Genesis reading to be the most compatible. This is clearly false as even a cursory examination of the fossil record contradicts Genesis pretty much at every point. So since science and Genesis do not agree, why do you reject science in favor of Genesis?
I don't agree. I think the fossil record shows dead things. It is not really a record of anything other than that. There are reasons I don't believe this "record" contradicts Genesis, technically. But also I have problems with the scientists' consensus that it is a record. The facts I don't dispute.
I don't think the fossils show evolution. I don't think they show time. I have been told, that one fossil can have two different dates, and that those dates are majorly different. There are other arguments and points, such as polystrate fossils.
And you seem to miss the point: The claim by Behe was that the flagellum could not possibly have evolved in any way, shape, or form; that to remove any part of the process makes the entire thing fail and be of absolutely no use no matter what.
Instead, we find that the flagellum is reducible and does provide function in this reduced state.
So where is your evidence of design?
That's ad logicam. You can only say that Behe was wrong, because mike the wiz was not, has not, ever mentioned irreducible complexity. In those other threads, I shown you that the claim of the ToE, is that all lifeforms came from a common ancestor. I did not mention gods, or God.
My claim, not Behe's, is that if the ToE claims this, is it fair that an example of a bacteria flaggellum adapting to a disease, really a great example of evolution. You thought this was proof of macro evolution, but even scientists wouldn't go that far because technically they can see the logical problems with that.
Sorry I didn't read your other posts to me, the tally is becoming great, not just from you but from others, and I would have to spend my whole day on them. It's much better to stick to one topic, and discuss that one topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 8:01 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by cavediver, posted 09-10-2009 7:56 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 485 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2009 12:27 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 452 of 687 (523427)
09-10-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Rrhain
09-09-2009 6:37 PM


Are you seriously saying that because that drawing is adapted from Haeckel's erroneous claim that during fetal development, humans actually become fish and birds, then that means the entire concept is without merit? That there is absolutely nothing to be learned from comparative embryology?
You infact shown Haeckel's picture in a fairly modern biology book, which was what I claimed. Nothing more.
I did not say nothing can be learned from embryology, I am indicating that it is not helpful to show false embryos in a biology book, without stating that such a diagram is utter falsehood.
The branchial arches in a human embryo, become tonsils, etc...anyone, whether Einstein or Bob the builder, can term them "gill slits". Does this mean that if something in an embryo of a none-human looks like a penis, I should call those "rudimentary penis", even if it becomes an arm or something?
You have to ASSUME there is a relation, when what you are looking at is a rudimentary tonsil, or ear canal, etc, it is totally disengenuous.
Oh, so close. It is not enough that you name the texts, though that's a start. The request was that you provide the titles and the complete context surrounding the references.
So now it isn't what i claimed - pictures in a book, but infact the goal posts have spread out to become, "titles and the complete context surrounding the references"?
Too late. I was bang on accurate the first time. Haeckel's pictures are indeed used in biology books. You seem to think that showing his pictures in a biology text book no disproves my claim that his pictures are in biology text books.
You "almost" turned that around on mikey. A "sorry mikey" would have been more mature of you. Sorry mikey - you didn't lie, I just jumped to conclusions about you because I thought you a liar.
Do you think there is a biogenetic law? I don't.
You need to explain why mammals have the same gill arches as fish. The fact that they develop into different structures in mammals is indicative of evolution.
I don't. You have to prove that certain rudimentary shapes are all logically "gill" arches. This means an assumption that anything that looks like a gill is infact not a branchial arch, but a gill. If it was a gill at the beginning, then it is reasonable to expect it to have a breathing function in an equally rudimentary capacity.
That mammals have branchial arches that develop into different structures, could be because, at that time of development, this rudimentary shape is somehow beneficial to development, and/or many reasons, but they were never gills anyway.
What do you expect me to do - go off of the fraudulent drawings? Perhaps back up the claim that these arches start out looking exactly the same in all mammals. If you reduce complexity, they will all look exactly the same at their rudimentary beginnings, therefore logically, that we all start out as sperm and egg could also indicate evolution. Not very powerful reasoning to me!! At the beginning, in embryos, there are similarities. This is because if you reduce a 3D letter "t" and a 3D letter "l", as they get lesser and lesser, they will start to look alike. If we only have a line left for both, they will look exactly the same.
It's called a reduction of the make-up in regards to the same matter. That is, we all are very different organisms made from the same matter, and if we all reduce and are NOT "made-up", we become more like matter, rather than something different from one another.
If we reduce embyros completely, you will get something in each embryo, still further similar and similar and even seemingly identical in parts perhaps, but what matters is that full development does not show similarities.
It's all about matter and information. We can start out with plastocine blobs, and both make-up shapes from the doh. The more complex those shapes are, the more we see the information from the designer who is creating that blob into maybe a turtle-shape. If we reduce these shapes, then they will come back to the same similar blobs of plastocine.
Listen, at one stage, embryos have almost got to look similar, because they are all cells, all organic matter, etc...You can "believe" this helps an evolution but I believe it just shows what it shows.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 6:37 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2009 2:59 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 453 of 687 (523428)
09-10-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Coyote
09-09-2009 11:32 PM


Re: Genesis Literal Facts
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
What human parents do now has no relation to the question of origins. What human parents do now doesn't prove anything about origins several billion years ago! You should be ashamed for even suggesting such a thing! Freshmen in science courses have been failed for less than that.
Is there 1 living creature on planet earth today that was not produced by a life form?
If there is name it and give details of the begining to exist of that creature.
Coyote writes:
Sorry, that doesn't cut it as empirical evidence.
Your rant has nothing to do with whether life begets life.
Does life produce life?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Coyote, posted 09-09-2009 11:32 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 8:01 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 487 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2009 3:06 AM ICANT has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 454 of 687 (523429)
09-10-2009 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by mike the wiz
09-10-2009 7:28 AM


I don't agree. I think the fossil record shows dead things. It is not really a record of anything other than that.
Utterly, utterly pathetic... if this is truly the level of your scientific understanding and reasoning, then we can get better arguments from a dog.
"[it] shows dead things"
"polystrate fossils."
For fuck's sake Mike - you used to have a brain. Stop pissing God off by treating it as urinal for piss-poor thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 7:28 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 8:07 AM cavediver has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 455 of 687 (523430)
09-10-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by ICANT
09-10-2009 7:52 AM


Re: Genesis Literal Facts
Is there 1 living creature on planet earth today that was not produced by a life form?
It's a good point you make. Furthermore, the complexity doesn't seem to reduce, at the cell. The cell is complex.
The full induction is that all lifeforms come from other lifeforms.
Does life produce life?
Yes! And the full induction of evidence shows this. Therefore this "evidence" which we hear so much about, must be regarded as relevant.
(Keep going.).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 7:52 AM ICANT has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 456 of 687 (523431)
09-10-2009 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by cavediver
09-10-2009 7:56 AM


You've become a very upset, and angry almost bitter guy who only curses in short posts. I think that's a shame. In truth, you are a smart and intelligent, knowledgeable guy, and I fully believe in you. I mean that - keep going in your field, and giving it your best and may God thoroughly bless you and your own in all new ways.
I'm proud of you by most standards.
It's okay - you don't have to get angry at me. I'm not out to get you. It's really is just that we very much disagree about the inferences behind the fossils. I was really only giving my quick opinion because otherwise there would never be an end to these off-shoots of different topics endlessly coming up. Perhaps in the future I can make a thread about my own worldview, like ICANTS. And if I have been mislead about fossils, then you can bet your life I will consider those mistakes and see if I should reconsider my position as largely ignorant. I admitt I don't have a great knowledge in that area but I know some things from seminars.
Kind regards, mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by cavediver, posted 09-10-2009 7:56 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by cavediver, posted 09-10-2009 8:32 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 457 of 687 (523432)
09-10-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by Sasuke
09-10-2009 1:34 AM


Re: Life from non Life
Hi Sasuke,
Sasuke writes:
It is not a fact, it is assumed. There has never been any evidence to suggest life can't come from non life.
There was some highly publicised experiments in 1953 with thousands following. Even today labs are busy all over the world trying to produce life. With all our technology in the past 56 years science is no closer to producing life.
Those thousands of experiments stand as testimony that non life can not produce life.
You can find one of those experiments Here
Sasuke writes:
Prove that life can't come from non life.
Why do I have to prove a negative?
Science has been proving it for 150 years.
Louis Pasteur said:
"Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment" (referring to his swan-neck flask experiment wherein he proved that fermenting microorganisms would not form in a flask containing fermentable juice until an entry path was created for them
Source
Fact #1
For 150 years science has been proving non life can not produce life.
Fact #2
You are living proof that life produces life.
Fact #3 Life produces life.
Conclusion:
Since only life produces life the first life on earth had to be produced by a living life form.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Sasuke, posted 09-10-2009 1:34 AM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2009 11:54 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 462 by Sasuke, posted 09-10-2009 1:46 PM ICANT has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 458 of 687 (523433)
09-10-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by mike the wiz
09-10-2009 8:07 AM


I am only angry because I see waste and bullshit. Both annoy the hell out of me - ask any of my past students. And I'm seeing a huge amount of the former and a good deal of the latter from you. With ICANT, it is very much the latter. I'd ignore ICANT except he insists on discssuing my area of expertise. I'd ignore you, except that I remember your old posts and now you frustrate the hell out of me. Short posts are sadly the result of 100+hr working weeks - the curse of running a rapidly growing business.
Enough about me - *YOU* need to start thinking more, and not accepting the crap spouted by those who really do know nothing. Being able to spout off philosophical jargon does not cut it with me or anyone else who has grown up in maths/logic/philosophy. Your arguments here against evo are Hovind-scale stupid. I would simply expect far far better of you...
ABE: Just to add
It's really is just that we very much disagree about the inferences behind the fossils.
I couldn't give a damn about how you interpret the fossils. I give far more respect to Peg for claiming that the Flud is behind the sorting of the layers, as that at least shows a modicum of thought. Saying that God put them that way out of a sense of aesthetics is at least acknowledging that there is something to be explained. To claim that fossils just show dead things is ignoring 95% of the information contained in the geological layers - information that has to be explained.
This is not CD getting pissed at creationists - this is CD getting pissed at piss-poor thinking, whether by Christian, aetheist, Hindu, Bhuddist, Zoroastrian, Muslim, etc, etc...
Finally, CD really hates it when MTW refers to himself in the third person - gets his goat, it does.
And CD really really hates the fact that MTW has the initials MTW - those initials are holy to all true practitioners of relativity (Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler)
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 8:07 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 459 of 687 (523434)
09-10-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 441 by ICANT
09-09-2009 9:12 PM


Re: Talking about
Does the velocity and gravity cause the pulse to change?
The velocity and gravity cause the pulse rate to change when we are observing it from some vantage point in a different gravitational field / acceleration and /or non-zero relative velocity
What difference would it make if you were on the satellite with the clock?
Since you would be in the same gravitation field / acceleration and there would be no relative velocity, you would observe the pulse rate to be the same as if you were on Earth with the satellite. But you would observe the pulse rate of the clock left on Earth to have changed.
This is basic popular-science relativity. This is not the place to write a new popular science book. If you want to learn enough to discuss it, start with a good popular science book on relativity. Relativity Simply Explained is good.
A postulate is an unproven assumption.
You mean like the universe beginning to exist 13.7 BYA.
No, not at all like that. The Universe beginning to exist 13.7 BYA has lots of evidence supporting it. Godel's postulate, if indeed it exists, has none.
I took a quick look on the Web and was unable to find any reference to Godel's postulated problem, other than yours. Science reporters are famous for getting the details wrong, and sometimes the main thrust wrong. I do find that Godel found a new solution to Einstein's field equations in 1949, but that solution precludes an expanding universe and therefore does not apply to our universe. If you want to claim that Godel found some problem with relativity, you're going to need a better reference.
What happens to time when you exceed the speed of light?
Oh, come on. Get real. Go read a book.
What is spacetime? Is one of the top 10 unanswered science questions.
Who says, and why are they right?
I never looked at the numbers and still haven't. All I looked at was the picture. You got satellites going in very different directions, even crossing each others path's. All the examples with clocks going in opposite directions keep different time.
Not if you do the transformation correctly. Not doing the transformation out in full with the proper math often leads to error, especially for one as ignorant as you or as ignorant as your source. Your source thinks that satellites are continuously increasing their energy from some unknown source and remaining in their same orbit! He thinks that you can ignore acceleration if you look at a situation at an instant of time!
Relativity is often counterintuitive. If you don't do the math, you often get the wrong answer. There are many examples for which, once someone's done the math, the results are explainable non-mathematically; but this ain't one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:12 PM ICANT has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 460 of 687 (523436)
09-10-2009 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by ICANT
09-09-2009 9:42 PM


Re: Time changes
So I don't make any adjustments to my clock. I take my clock on the satellite into orbit and it will keep perfect time with the clock on the ground.
Nope, you will observe the clock on the ground to be running slower than yours. By the exact amount that the observer on Earth thinks your clock is running faster than his. All observers in all possible states of motion agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 5:34 PM JonF has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 461 of 687 (523447)
09-10-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by ICANT
09-10-2009 8:32 AM


Re: Life from non Life
Since only life produces life the first life on earth had to be produced by a living life form.
Still nonsense.
I suppose the fact that Edison failed to make a workable filament for his first light bulb--producing thousands of failures--is proof positive that such a filament can't be made, eh? That's the analogy you are making.
But you are left with one simple problem: There is no empirical evidence for deities, yours or any other. There is only your religious belief, the details of which are contradicted by tens of thousands of other religious beliefs from around the world. And none are supported by empirical evidence. Not very much to go on there, eh?
But from this mish-mash of unsupported beliefs you pull an absolute proof that only life begets life?
Sorry, that's just another belief, and its not proof of anything.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 8:32 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 4:49 PM Coyote has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 462 of 687 (523463)
09-10-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by ICANT
09-10-2009 8:32 AM


Re: Life from non Life
ICANT,
The issue is what constitutes as being life. Currently our understanding is limited to biological life. Two issues are whether or not non life can in fact produce life and whether or not we understand life perfectly. I will agree non life can't produce life but that does not make it proven. Neither can all the evidence in the world prove life can only come from life. In reality there is no reason to think there is a god cept an assumption and as such we know there are natural laws. Being as it is, it seems non life can produce life based on that observation alone.
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 8:32 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 4:32 PM Sasuke has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 463 of 687 (523484)
09-10-2009 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Sasuke
09-10-2009 1:46 PM


Re: Life from non Life
Hi Sasuke,
Sasuke writes:
I will agree non life can't produce life but that does not make it proven.
When you add over 150 years of trying to produce life from non life by some pretty good scientist it gains weight.
When you consider the last 60 years of that with the best technology available to mankind, science has accomplished a lot.
But alas, no life with the technology we have. So how did it just happen?
You add all that together and it paints a pretty solid picture that you are not going to get life from non life.
To believe you can takes a lot of faith which scientist say they don't have any of.
Sasuke writes:
Neither can all the evidence in the world prove life can only come from life.
All that is necessary is to prove non life can produce life.
Sasuke writes:
In reality there is no reason to think there is a god cept an assumption and as such we know there are natural laws.
A natural law being something that just exists. Why does it exist?
KSasuke writes:
Being as it is, it seems non life can produce life based on that observation alone.
My indian blood say you speak with forked tongue.
You say: I will agree non life can't produce life.
Then you say it seems non life can produce life.
Which is it?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Sasuke, posted 09-10-2009 1:46 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Sasuke, posted 09-10-2009 6:51 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 464 of 687 (523486)
09-10-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by Coyote
09-10-2009 11:54 AM


Re: Life from non Life
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
I suppose the fact that Edison failed to make a workable filament for his first light bulb--producing thousands of failures--is proof positive that such a filament can't be made, eh? That's the analogy you are making.
No Edison got it right in his generation.
We have had 4 generations and a lot better equiptment than Edison had and have failed to produce life from non life.
To continue to believe you can produce life from non life takes a lot of faith.
But to believe in your evolution you don't have a choice.
Coyote writes:
And none are supported by empirical evidence.
Sure there is unless you can produce life from non life.
Coyote writes:
But from this mish-mash of unsupported beliefs you pull an absolute proof that only life begets life?
So produce another source that begets life.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2009 11:54 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Perdition, posted 09-10-2009 5:08 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 468 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2009 5:41 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 465 of 687 (523488)
09-10-2009 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by ICANT
09-10-2009 4:49 PM


Re: Life from non Life
We have had 4 generations and a lot better equiptment than Edison had and have failed to produce life from non life.
We're also operating in conditions very different from those in which life originated and have the added difficulty of making sure current life doesn't contaminate our experiment. We're also relegated to an extremely small area of operation compared to, well, the entire Earth, as well as guessing what types of chemicals and things are necessary, which ones were present, and how much energy/time/proportions etc are needed or optimal.
We're also closer than we've ever been before, so just because we haven't doesn't mean we won't. When we succeed in creating life out of non-living materials, will you finally admit the possibility, or will you just take a step and say, all you've shown is that it takes life in a lab to create life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 4:49 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 5:44 PM Perdition 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