|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
One comment from a friend I had lunch with yesterday: "It sounds like he can maintain understanding of only a single sentence at a time." I've noticed this sometimes at work. When the subject you are trying to explain is not really considered important people often politely switch off until you finish talking (and then only retain the first and last thing you say). Very much like listening to long winded directions when you are lost and ask someone in the street. Then they launch into what they want to talk about. Or some people do try to listen but can't quite 'get' your meaning (especially true when explaining something completely out side their frame of reference) but pick up on a few familiar words or phrases and put them together in a way that is meaningful to them (where the confirmation bias creeps in). Often this leaves me with the thought "how the hell did s/he get that from what I said?". People are funny old things. ABE: ninja'd by RAZD Edited by Larni, : Ninja'd
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In the debate thread Arphy writes:
While biological arguments can certainly be used as corroborative evidence, many arguments can be used for creation in general. Geologic evidence and Anthropological evidence gives more direct biblical evidence as it provides evidence for one of the most significant events in the bible. Namely The Flood.
You've got to be kidding! A global flood about 4,350 years ago is among the most thoroughly discredited ideas in history! It has been disproved worldwide by many different fields of investigation. Data from my own archaeological research disproves it based (at minimum) on: 1) continuity of human cultures; 2) continuity of genetic lineages; 3) continuity of fauna and flora; and 4) continuity of stratigraphy. The only folks who believe in the flood are biblical literalists practicing religious apologetics. You mention geological evidence: that doesn't work because geological strata are older than 4,350 years! Forget the Cambrian explosion and all the rest of geology; for evidence of what happened 4,350 years ago you need to look to the soils, not the rocks. And there is no evidence for a global flood in the 4,350 year old soils. You also mention anthropological evidence, presumably myths of floods. Fine. All you have to do is prove that all of those myths refer to the same flood, then explain how those folks are alive to tell the tales after such a flood. (Don't you realize that most of the world's population lives very close to water? Don't you think floods are common? Just ask the folks in New Orleans, or along the Mississippi River.) Sorry, the battle to document a global flood about 4,350 years ago was lost in the early 1800s. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
Sorry, the battle to document a global flood about 4,350 years ago was lost in the early 1800s. Actually it was lost long before that. Leonardo da Vince concluded that there was no single flood event from the evidence he had of shell deposits in http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html
quote: Pity he did not publish these comments in a peer reviewed journal .... This very same kind of evidence is what convince the early "hobby" geologists in the 1800's, many of whom were clerical people, that (a) the earth was in fact very old, and (b) that a global flood had not occurred in the natural history of the earth. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In the debate thread Arphy writes:
On the age of the earth AS expects CMI to come out with some sort of research that uses a "clock" which says that the earth is 6000 years old. This is just not possible, because every such natural clock is based on big assumptions. The date of approx. 6000 years comes from simple calculations using the dates and ages provided in the bible and other historical sources. Although even here certain assumptions are used, variancies if source information still do not allow for an excessive increase beyond this age. Your use of the term, "big assumptions" is meaningless unless you can show that those assumptions are inappropriate. Calling the assumptions supporting radiometric dating "big assumptions" is not scientific evidence of any kind. It is nothing more than "well, I don't believe it so its not true." In other words, of no value whatsoever.
What I do find legitimate is when research is done that takes a wide variety of assumptions and possibilities into account. This type of research allows us to calculate maximum or minimum ages for the earth. CMI certainly provide evidence to support a "young" earth by using research (including references to the RATE project) which shows that the maximum age of the earth does not fit with the naturalistic ideas such as long-age geology or evolutionary biology. Yet the evidence does fit within Biblical creationist geology and biology. Note, that this doesn't necessarily completly negate a naturalistic explanation, but to say that naturalistic biology and geology will someday find a way to incorporate the "young-ness" of the earth, is really just special pleading. Therefore I think it is reasonable to say that evidence for a "young" earth is evidence for Biblical creation.
Don't cite the RATE project in support of a young earth. The RATE project concluded that there was evidence for several hundred million years of radioactive decay--and this is from their own data! They could not support the "young-ness" of the earth with their study, but they fell back on that religious belief even when their data showed a much older earth than they wanted or expected to see. They showed that they were doing religious apologetics, not science. Face it: a young earth is as discredited an idea as the global flood about 4,350 years ago. Two reviews of the RATE project: Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac: Arphy--Are you going to respond to any of these posts or is this going to be a monologue? Edited by Coyote, : Post directed to Arphy, not RADZ Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
...the "Great Debate" topic Discussion of the CMI-AS debate (Meldinoor, NosyNed, Slevesque, Arphy only).
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Arphy doesn't have to respond here. He is in a great debate to avoid piling on among other things. Maybe we'll get to this, maybe not.
I don't have a lot of time and I don't believe that anyone should have to rush so Arphy and slevesque can take as long as they want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Coyote writes: Arphy--Are you going to respond to any of these posts or is this going to be a monologue? Adding to what Nosy said, this is a peanut gallery, a place where members can comment on a discussion in ways that would be inappropriate in the discussion itself, often because they're spectators rather than participants. It isn't a place for spectators to draw participants into additional discussion, and in fact, that's discouraged. If you want to have your own discussion with Arphy then suggest it to him, but one of the reasons he's in a great debate right now is so he doesn't have to respond to too many people at the same time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Because I'm moderating over in the Has natural selection really been tested and verified? thread I'll have to satisfy myself with commenting here in the Peanut Gallery.
Bolder-dash is beginning to feel that he's getting yanked around by changing definitions of natural selection. People tell him that natural selection operates on variation, and that variation comes from mutations, and he puts two and two together and concludes that natural selection operates on mutations. But people keep telling him he's wrong to reach this conclusion, because while it is true it is also woefully incomplete. After four billion years of life it's a pretty safe bet that every nucleotide in every genome around the world began as a mutation. There must be very few untouched nucleotides left from the very first life. Therefore it could be argued that all nucleotides in all genomes are the result of mutations. But we don't usually talk about mutations this way. We usually consider a mutation to be a genetic change that happened recently in just the last few generations, and this is the definition of mutation that people are using when they explain that natural selection operates on variation rather than mutations. So it's not that natural selection doesn't operate on new mutations in the current generation. Natural selection most certainly does operate on new mutations to the extent that they're expressed. But natural selection also operates on all other variation in organisms. It is true that all this variation came about gradually over eons of time through mutations, but we don't usually call them mutations anymore. Past mutations that have become successful are considered part of the genome and we don't call them mutations anymore, we just think of them as the foundation for variation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Humphreys responded to this argument here: http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp. Showing that the in vacuum results are totally acceptable, and that Henke's argument is faulty in many occasions. No, Humphrey's claims are useless:
quote: ...completely ignoring the point Henke raises concerning defects and fractures in the zircon. These should potentially have a MASSIVE effect upon the diffusion rates, but Humphreys completely fails to acknowledge this. Even in Humphreys'2008 article, he claims to have answered all critcisms regarding presuure, compressibility and diffusion rates back in his 2006 reply, which is blatently false and approaching deliberate falsehood. Just as an additional: Humphreys is a useless twat when he comes to physics. His amateur ability in General Relativity enabled him to come up with his creation cosmology, which simply does not work, but unfortunately he is too dumb to acknowledge it despite being taken to task by those immeasurably more gifted and knowledgable than he. And his guesses at the magnetic field strength of the lesser giant planets came with error bounds so broad that it would have been a miracle not to have bracketed the correct value
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But could it be that it reveals that there is a common faulty assumption behind all these dating methods ? Besides, creationist also have multiple lines of evidence that all show a maximum age smaller then the common dates of the earth, solar system, etc. It would seem both sides sit on their 'correlation'. No. Not even close. The faulty assumption is that 3,000 year old scriptures suggest or document a young earth. And the multiple lines of evidence cited by creationists have all been disproved. None of this convinces creationists, who keep pushing the same flawed arguments, though. That's because they don't rely on evidence, just on belief, so evidence that contradicts those beliefs has no effect. Fine, but don't try to pretend it is science. It is the exact opposite. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
To those exhibiting quixotic behavior in TOE and the Reasons for Doubt: Everything you're saying has been said before, many times. There's no light bulb to go on. You may as well be conversing with a chatbot.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In the OP Bolder-dash states:
I read recently where an editor of Discovery Magazine stated that Darwin provided a testable mechanism for evolutionary change, and as such it has stood up to the rigors of such testing. I am not so sure that this is true. Can people point to tests that have verified that natural selection causes evolutionary change? What tests have they conducted? Do these tests accurately mimic the real world? In Message 5 I stated:
First you need to define what you mean by "evolutionary change" - so we can see if your meaning is similar to what is used in the science of biology in general and evolution in particular. In science "evolutionary change" means that the frequency distribution of hereditary traits is different from one generation to the next. I expect you are thinking of something more dramatic than variations on a theme changes.... Natural selection is only part of the process of evolution, ... So, what you mean by "evolutionary change"? What do you expect to see? In Message 17 he replied:
The supposition made by the magazine editor (not by me)was that Darwin's idea of natural selection has been tested to be the driving force of evolutionary change (including of course changes in body structures, and living systems, etc). Since then he has devolved into a complaining troll, repeating and repeating that (Message 203 is one example):
I had ABSOLUTELY NO desire to talk of natural selection as it relates to some generic concept that means nothing in terms of evolution-I had every intention to discuss NS as it relates to EVOLUTION! ... ... I wrote very specifically what it was I was asking for three times? NS as it relates to EVOLUTION. Please read that sentence again-Natural Selection as it relates to Evolution. Please address why you continue to fail to see the connection between NS and EVOLUTIONARY Change, as opposed to whatever the heck you want to call NS which does not involve evolutionary change. What Bolder-dash fails to comprehend is that his total failure to define what he means by "EVOLUTIONARY Change" necessarily leaves us with only the scientific definition and usage, of evolutionary change to mean the change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. Continuing to repeat his complaint, without attempting to further explain what he means, is obviously futile wasted bandwidth. Trying to shout (caps) it doesn't add to the definition of what he means. Simply put, the problem is his lack of communication for what he means by "EVOLUTIONARY Change" and this needs to be resolved before any progress can be made. I suggest that this be the top priority when the thread re-opens. I also think that other sub-topics from Peg and herebedragons should be diverted to new topics in the interim to leave Bolder-dash with his thread to answer his topic. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • • |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Trying to pinpoint specific years with geological "clocks" has too many assumptions attached.
"Assumption" does not mean "wrong" no matter how many times creationists imply that it does. And claiming that various dating methods rely on assumptions does not cast their results into doubt--except in the minds of creationists, who rely on belief rather than evidence in the first place. If you have evidence that these dating methods, that correlate with one another, are actually wrong present that evidence. Crying "assumptions" is not evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
"Assumption" does not mean "wrong" no matter how many times creationists imply that it does. The standard creationist tactic is to cry "assumption!" meaning "taken without proof". Using that definition, there are no assumptions underlying radiometric dating other than the usual one that there is a real world and our senses can convey information about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Ok, I have now gnawed off both my arms in frustration at Arphy completely failing to follow Nosy on Nosy's clock analogies - what the f'ck do I do when we go past the analogies and actually get the real deal????
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024