Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
24 online now:
GDR, Tanypteryx (2 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 76 of 336 (619698)
06-11-2011 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:50 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Chuck77 writes:


Real Definition of Science:

I like how it's a state of "knowing". LOL.

Anyone can look up words in the dictionary. But someone who is carrying out a sincere discussion knows that not all of the definitions (and I note in passing that you did not include all of the definitions from your source) are applicable.

For example, under definition 2b, boxing is a science. Is that really what under discussion here? Are we really saying that the pugilistic arts should be taught in science class rather than in PE?

Definition 3a is closest to what we call science. It is a bit circular because it does rely on knowing what the scientific method. But that's easily cured by finding out what the scientific method is.

You can expect that scientists will rigorously defend the proposition that their work fits under the appropriate definition, and won't be the least bit concerned about the other meanings for science.

Is the Scientific method used when determining what a "transitional" fossil is? How about Puncuated equllibrium? Nope, just assumptions. THAT's what science is when it comes to TOE and the "Big Bang". 100% assumptions. It must be nice to use Natural Seclection(which happens) and the force behind TOE and not have to prove that it actually leads to animals changing into completly different species of animals. Yes, a different KIND of animal. All we observe is the finch beaks as the best example. Different beaks not different kinds. THAT'S Natural Selection.

Hopefully if you stick around a bit, you'll participate in some discussions here the evidence is discussed. You probably won't change your mind, but you might change your belief that scientists are just quacks even if you still know they are wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:50 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 1:15 AM NoNukes has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 77 of 336 (619706)
06-11-2011 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Buzsaw
06-11-2011 9:14 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Buzsaw writes:

Son, click on my Buzsaw profile to see that Buzsaw has understood the alleged scientific claims of abiogenesis and ToE. I am fully aware of them. Chuck was right. One of the functions of paragraphs is to separate points posted. BB and ToE pertain to points posted.


So you admit that both points were just 'rabbit holes'.

"If you are unable to answer the question: change the question."
You appear to have a penchant for dishonest debating techniques.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 06-11-2011 9:14 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 78 of 336 (619707)
06-11-2011 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
06-11-2011 8:10 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Percy writes:

This is a hodgepodge of familiar examples of creationist confusion about evolution and science and is typical creationist thinking. Most of these fall into the category of fallacy of, "If I can disrespect it I've refuted it."

I went through a couple of lists of logical fallacies, and can't find a name for this one. I therefore move that Percy be officially recognised as the identifier of the "argumentum ad derisium" fallacy.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : Inserted appropriate quote.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 06-11-2011 8:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 746 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 79 of 336 (619709)
06-11-2011 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:50 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Is the Scientific method used when determining what a "transitional" fossil is?

Yes.

How about Puncuated equllibrium?

Also, yes.

THAT's what science is when it comes to TOE and the "Big Bang". 100% assumptions.

Well, TOE and "big bang" are wildly different parts of radically different areas of science. Just because the fairy tale your mommy told you links them, that doesn't make it so.

But, more importantly, the only "assumption" involved in either is the same assumption that ALL of science utilizes: "Reality is real".

If you have evidence to support the claim that reality is unreal, let's see it. Otherwise, we're going to stick to our guns on that assumption - since without that, there's literally no point to anything.

Natural Seclection(which happens) and the force behind TOE and not have to prove that it actually leads to animals changing into completly different species of animals. Yes, a different KIND of animal. All we observe is the finch beaks as the best example. Different beaks not different kinds. THAT'S Natural Selection.

Yawn. I strongly suspect that you aren't actually this stupid but are just pretending because you know that citing examples like proto-avians, archaeoptryx and chickens would clearly demonstrate that you're wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:50 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(2)
Message 80 of 336 (619711)
06-11-2011 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:50 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Chuck77 writes:

I like how it's a state of "knowing". LOL. Really? How? By the Scientific method? Is the Scientific method used when determining what a "transitional" fossil is? How about Puncuated equllibrium? Nope, just assumptions. THAT's what science is when it comes to TOE and the "Big Bang". 100% assumptions. It must be nice to use Natural Seclection(which happens) and the force behind TOE and not have to prove that it actually leads to animals changing into completly different species of animals. Yes, a different KIND of animal. All we observe is the finch beaks as the best example. Different beaks not different kinds. THAT'S Natural Selection.

Chuck, I am going to do you a favor and pass on an important life lesson.

I went to graduate school a number of years ago to get a Masters degree, and as graduation approached I realized that I was sadly deficient in my knowledge of one of the primary topics in my field of study. (I suspect that I'm not the frist person to earn an advanced degree and leave only aware of how much he doesn't know.) So I went to one of my professors - a real genius in the field, if at times a bit of a prick - and asked him if he'd be willing to let me consult with him sometimes as I attempted to make up for what I hadn't learned so far. He took me over to a rack of various handouts, pulled out one that he'd written listing about 30 or so major texts in the field, most of them huge reference works, with the most important highlighted, and said, "Here. Read these and then you'll be able to ask me intelligent questions."

Ignorance is a terrible thing, but it does have a cure. Here's a much smaller list of books. You don't even have to read all of them. Pick one and read it. Really read it. Then you'll much more able to have an intellient discussion about these things.

After all, I wouln't jump into an archeology forum and start blasting the participants with claims that aliens built the pyramids and the Chinese discovered electricity in the 3rd century BCE, and that the guys who'd been working in the fields for decades didn't know what they were talking about. As the man said in the movie Hamburger Hill: "If you want to survive here, you will listen to people who know." (Hope I got that quote right.) I'm sure that there are plenty more titles that others can also suggest.

Now listen:

Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design by Richard Dawkins (Yes, him - Lord High Satan of Atheism. Don't be afraid.)

Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin

Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution by Nick Lane

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:50 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 1:28 AM ZenMonkey has responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 336 (619745)
06-12-2011 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by NoNukes
06-11-2011 10:22 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
NoNukes said "Anyone can look up words in the dictionary. But someone who is carrying out a sincere discussion knows that not all of the definitions (and I note in passing that you did not include all of the definitions from your source) are applicable.

For example, under definition 2b, boxing is a science. Is that really what under discussion here? Are we really saying that the pugilistic arts should be taught in science class rather than in PE?"

No, Nuke, I just posted the definition of Science from Merrium Webster. I Do actually know we aren't talking about boxing as a science here.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 06-11-2011 10:22 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2011 8:20 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 336 (619748)
06-12-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by ZenMonkey
06-11-2011 1:37 PM


Re: Who Observed What?
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design by Richard Dawkins (Yes, him - Lord High Satan of Atheism. Don't be afraid.)

LOL, yes, Satan of atheism. Zen, thanks for the advise I appreciate it. I really do.

Also, sure I'll read the book, if you read "The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-11-2011 1:37 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-12-2011 2:54 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 115 by Granny Magda, posted 06-18-2011 5:11 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 336 (619771)
06-12-2011 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Chuck77
06-12-2011 1:15 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Chuck77 writes:

For example, under definition 2b, boxing is a science. Is that really what under discussion here? Are we really saying that the pugilistic arts should be taught in science class rather than in PE?"

No, Nuke, I just posted the definition of Science from Merrium Webster. I Do actually know we aren't talking about boxing as a science here.

The question was rhetorical. You were supposed to notice that other definitions, such as science is the state of knowing, which you selected and mocked, were equally inappropriate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 1:15 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 84 of 336 (619813)
06-12-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Chuck77
06-12-2011 1:28 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Chuck77 writes:

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design by Richard Dawkins (Yes, him - Lord High Satan of Atheism. Don't be afraid.)

LOL, yes, Satan of atheism. Zen, thanks for the advise I appreciate it. I really do.

Also, sure I'll read the book, if you read "The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath".

Gladly. I just put a copy of The Dawkins Delusion on hold with my local library. I will warn you, I have so far been quite unimpressed with the general quality of Christian apologetics I've read (among others: Lee Strobel, Paul Copan, and don't get me started about William Lane Craig), but I will give it a fair reading. I'll suggest that Why Evolution is True might be a better place to start for you, but as you wish.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 1:28 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

RightHandMan
Junior Member (Idle past 2926 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 06-12-2011


Message 85 of 336 (619856)
06-12-2011 7:12 PM


When will beavers make the next hoover dam?
So can you evolutionist tell me when the beavers will make the next hoover dam? What a billion years? How about never!!! Or do you think the wood they eat will make them able? What in their environment will make their intelligence match ours? The talking trees? There is a reason Jesus is called the Lord of Lords... maybe you should think about that!
Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Panda, posted 06-12-2011 7:22 PM RightHandMan has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 86 of 336 (619858)
06-12-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RightHandMan
06-12-2011 7:12 PM


Re: When will beavers make the next hoover dam?
RightHandMan writes:

So can you evolutionist tell me when the beavers will make the next hoover dam? What a billion years? How about never!!! Or do you think the wood they eat will make them able? What in their environment will make their intelligence match ours? The talking trees?


"How about never!!!" - correct.
The beavers are Democrats, so they will not build a Hoover Dam.

Oh...and I would seek help if the trees are talking to you.

{abe}

RightHandMan writes:

There is a reason Jesus is called the Lord of Lords...


Why is he called the Lord of Lords?
Why is he not also called the Lord of Queens and the Lord of Princesses?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RightHandMan, posted 06-12-2011 7:12 PM RightHandMan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RightHandMan, posted 06-12-2011 7:33 PM Panda has responded

RightHandMan
Junior Member (Idle past 2926 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 06-12-2011


Message 87 of 336 (619861)
06-12-2011 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Panda
06-12-2011 7:22 PM


Re: When will beavers make the next hoover dam?
If you would like to know God HE IS Here! All you have to do is say YES! Simple as that! Even the beaver I'm sure has a relationship with God! I guess sometimes it's probably easier for an animal to allow God in his life! MAYBE because he is NOT SO PROUD!!! Although as God says who is worth more.... do you think God will keep trying for you to accept him?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Panda, posted 06-12-2011 7:22 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 06-12-2011 7:37 PM RightHandMan has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 06-12-2011 8:29 PM RightHandMan has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 88 of 336 (619862)
06-12-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RightHandMan
06-12-2011 7:33 PM


Re: When will beavers make the next hoover dam?
RightHandMan writes:

If you would like to know God HE IS Here! All you have to do is say YES! Simple as that!


YES!

*taps foot waiting...*

*looks at watch...*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RightHandMan, posted 06-12-2011 7:33 PM RightHandMan has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 89 of 336 (619866)
06-12-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RightHandMan
06-12-2011 7:33 PM


Re: When will beavers make the next hoover dam?
Hi RightHandMan,

Welcome to EvC Forum.

The message of the Lord is discussed over in the Religious Forums. This is one of the Science Forums.

This thread is about creationist thinking as it pertains to science education, while your message is the good news that God is here, so you probably want to try a thread over in the Religious Forums.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RightHandMan, posted 06-12-2011 7:33 PM RightHandMan has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2844 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 90 of 336 (619867)
06-12-2011 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 1:54 PM


Re: Call it what you will...
Acalepha writes:

The end result is that you are picking the belief system of one ethnic group over the belief system of another. Is it right to subordinate the myths and values of one people over another group? This type of prejudice preceeds brainwashing as it asks the citizen to ignore their set of beliefs for one that is fed to them as "truth".

kind regards,

Acalepha

Good point almost. However not all faiths can equally attest to their validity and basis in common sense if not science.

Some people believe in a very overwieght prophet that abandoned his family in search of enlightenment, most believe in a prophet of some sort that is self glorifying, accepts glory and/or has achieved riches.

The reason my beliefs are bible based is that the bible stand out amongst spiritual guides in that the writers did not take glory for themselves, nor become rich. The pope is rich and have proclaimed self omnipotence so I am not refering to any particular version of Christianity either, as better than another. However the bible as a basis for faith stands out, and is scientifically correct in many areas.

The commandments to the Isrealites were hygiene based eg wash hand before eating. This given at a time when germs were unknown, the circle of the earth when generally the earth was thought to be flat, a lifeless earth at its creation, etc.

In one way it is wrong to say any particular faith has more going for it than another. On the other hand some faiths, and believers not attached to a particular faith, can defend the basis for their faith better than others.

Some believers in TOE are unable to defend their stance with any veracity also, I may add, yet still believe in the faith. Are these any less credible than a creationist that can defend their stance.

I think people should have choices in learning faiths at school according to culture. However if TOE is taught as a science it needs to be taught warts and all, not just the glossy stuff that looks convincing.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 1:54 PM Acalepha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Admin, posted 06-12-2011 9:35 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2011 10:13 PM Mazzy has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019