Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9041 total)
70 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, dwise1, PaulK (4 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,915 Year: 3,561/14,102 Month: 181/321 Week: 41/59 Day: 2/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 376 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 106 of 301 (703120)
07-15-2013 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dr Adequate
07-15-2013 7:21 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
EXCUSE ME, of course I should have said the PREHISTORIC past. And excuse you because you should have known that's what I meant. Anything past that is within the range of living witnesses is possible to evidence, or even written history up to a point. The prehistoric past is not.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2013 7:21 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2013 7:42 PM Faith has responded
 Message 121 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2013 8:35 PM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 107 of 301 (703121)
07-15-2013 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
07-15-2013 7:04 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Foreveryoung capitulated to the usual mental acrobatics, sad. It is possible to be a Geologist and remain true to the Biblical Young Earth; Kurt Wise has done it.

Well, that was bizarre.

There is nothing acrobatic about what f.e.y. is doing, namely looking at the evidence for an old earth and conceding that it is old. What is acrobatic to the point of contortionism is to do what Kurt Wise does, admit that all the evidence proves him wrong and maintain his fundie beliefs in the face of it.

Imagine two men looking at an elephant. One of them says: "It looks big, so I think it is big". The other says: "It looks big, but I believe that it is small, because I am a Small Elephant Creationist". Which one is indulging in mental gymnastics?

I began having doubts about evolution long before I was a Christian. It is true, however, that I probably wouldn't have pursued them beyond my initial attempts if I hadn't become a Christian and read some Creationism, I would simply have lived with the cognitive dissonance indefinitely, constantly recognizing the lack of evidence, the evidence that goes nowhere and so on, while having to accept the party line at the same time.

Or you might have learned something.

It seems unlikely given what we know of you now, but you might have taken an interest in facts before you became a fundie.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:36 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 376 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 108 of 301 (703122)
07-15-2013 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by hooah212002
07-15-2013 7:23 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Look, they had smallpox vaccine back in the 18th century before anybody believed in evolution, and all kinds of other vaccines into the 20th century that were simply developed on the basis of permitting the body to develop antibodies to a given pathogen. I was enough of a science nut that I saved clippings on the Salk vaccine when it first came out.

Let me guess, you are going to claim that the flu "evolves" from season to season which requires new formulas to adapt to its new forms or something along those lines? Then let me hasten to assure you that that level of "evolution" is not a problem for YECs. That's the usual "microevolution" that we all know and love, not "macroevolution."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by hooah212002, posted 07-15-2013 7:23 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by hooah212002, posted 07-15-2013 7:44 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 376 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 109 of 301 (703123)
07-15-2013 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dr Adequate
07-15-2013 7:30 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
I spent a fair amount of time trying to track down the evidence, back in the 70s sometime, based on popular accounts of evolution and the periodical Skeptical Inquirer, and found that it never led anywhere conclusive. Nevertheless I didn't give up on the theory, it's what the scientists claimed after all, and I respected science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2013 7:30 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2013 7:48 PM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 110 of 301 (703124)
07-15-2013 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
07-15-2013 7:23 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
EXCUSE ME, of course I should have said the PREHISTORIC past. And excuse you because you should have known that's what I meant.

How should I have known which particular delusion you're suffering from?

A: I'm an elephant, trumpety-trump!
B: Where's your trunk, then?
A: You should have known I meant giraffe!

Anything past that is within the range of living witnesses is possible to evidence. The prehistoric past is not.

If you think that only living witnesses can inform us about past events ... please never sit on a jury, OK? If you don't think that, then maybe you could inform us which delusion you are suffering from right now. (See, I've learned caution, I'm not assuming that I know in which way you're trying to be wrong.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:46 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 111 of 301 (703125)
07-15-2013 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
07-15-2013 7:33 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Look, they had smallpox vaccine back in the 18th century before anybody believed in evolution, and all kinds of other vaccines into the 20th century that were simply developed on the basis of permitting the body to develop antibodies to a given pathogen. I was enough of a science nut that I saved clippings on the Salk vaccine when it first came out.

What is your point? I wasn't talking about smallpox or any other vaccine since they are not all the same.

Let me guess, you are going to claim that the flu "evolves" from season to season which requires new formulas to adapt to its new forms or something along those lines?

I don't need to make claims. I have evidence and I just showed you the science that you have made an entire thread about accepting, but since it goes against your beliefs, you are going to call upon all your cognitive dissonance to now deny it.

Can you go ahead and admit to only accepting science that has been properly vetted against your religious beliefs?
This makes the choices very few since your particular brand of religion is YEC.

Also, could you finally point me/us to science you actually accept?

Then let me hasten to assure you that that level of "evolution" is not a problem for YECs. That's the usual "microevolution" that we all know and love, not "macroevolution."

Ahh, I see. The goalposts weren't adequately shifted. I certainly hope I have proven a point to onlookers or at the very least, taught someone a valuable lesson in honesty.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:49 PM hooah212002 has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 376 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 112 of 301 (703126)
07-15-2013 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Dr Adequate
07-15-2013 7:42 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
I did add a phrase about written testimony as well, not just living witnesses. Sorry you apparently missed it. The point, again, is that the past that precedes any sort of witness possibility cannot be subjected to scientific testing. Not that you can't know SOMETHING about it, but you can't know what you think you know, which is all conjecture. Like the meaning of the supposed order in the geologic column. That is unprovable, pure conjecture. My conjecture says the geologic column was clearly laid down in a short period of time by a cataclysmic flow of water. Fits the actual facts a lot better than your conjecture does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2013 7:42 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2013 8:01 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 119 by hooah212002, posted 07-15-2013 8:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 113 of 301 (703127)
07-15-2013 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
07-15-2013 7:36 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
I spent a fair amount of time trying to track down the evidence ...

Plenty of scientists seem to have managed it, as indeed did I. I shall not speculate on whether your deficiency lies more in the area of competence, diligence, or intelligence.

Since your religious conversion, how much time have you spent looking for evidence of talking snakes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:50 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 376 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 301 (703128)
07-15-2013 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by hooah212002
07-15-2013 7:44 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Honesty? YECs have NEVER had a problem with "microevolution," we can SEE it after all. The problem here is yours, not mine. Yes I see I was right from your links that flu vaccine is developed to keep pace with "evolving" strains of flu. Yep, "microevolution." There is no moving of goalposts here, there is merely your failure to understand anything about Creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by hooah212002, posted 07-15-2013 7:44 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by hooah212002, posted 07-15-2013 8:08 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 376 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 115 of 301 (703129)
07-15-2013 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Dr Adequate
07-15-2013 7:48 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
There IS no evidence of descent from one Species to another and you have never found any either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2013 7:48 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Rahvin, posted 07-15-2013 8:02 PM Faith has responded
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2013 8:49 PM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 301 (703130)
07-15-2013 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
07-15-2013 7:46 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

I did add a phrase about written testimony as well, not just living witnesses. Sorry you apparently missed it.

Then I shall update my post to reflect that:

Dr A writes:

If you think that only living witnesses can inform us about past events ... please never sit on a jury, OK? If you don't think that, then maybe you could inform us which delusion you are suffering from right now. (See, I've learned caution, I'm not assuming that I know in which way you're trying to be wrong.)

Please. Just recuse yourself. If you explain your views to the judge, I'm sure he'll excuse you. The risk of being confined for psychiatric examination is one that you'll just have to take.

Faith writes:

The point, again, is that the past that precedes any sort of witness possibility cannot be subjected to scientific testing.

But scientists do test statements about the past. Obviously. So once again, honesty requires that you should use an adjective other than "scientific". Say, if you wish, that past events cannot be subjected to "bunch-of-hooey-Faith-made-up-in-her-head-that-makes-scientists-laugh-with-contempt-and-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-scientific-method-'cos-of-not-being-scientific testing".

Not that you can't know SOMETHING about it, but you can't know what you think you know, which is all conjecture. Like the meaning of the supposed order in the geologic column. That is unprovable, pure conjecture. My conjecture says the geologic column was clearly laid down in a short period of time by a cataclysmic flow of water. Fits the actual facts a lot better than your conjecture does.

Could you not at least try to make your falsehoods mutually consistent? (I would also ask if you could make them less flagrantly absurd, but I fear you cannot.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 117 of 301 (703131)
07-15-2013 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
07-15-2013 7:50 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
quote:
New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[21] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[22]

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[23] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[24][25]

Diane Dodd used a laboratory experiment to show how reproductive isolation can evolve in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after several generations by placing them in different media, starch- and maltose-based media.[26]

Drosophila speciation experiment.svg

Dodd's experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods.[27] Research in 2005 has shown that this rapid evolution of reproductive isolation may in fact be a relic of infection by Wolbachia bacteria.[28]


Just from the artificial speciation section on Wikipedia.

We have observed new species differentiating from parent species. We've directly observed it, both in the wild and in the lab.

I know that you're going to respond by saying that these are all examples of "microevolution" because a fly didn't turn into a dog, and a cat didn't turn into a fish. But the entirety of the micro/macroevolution distinction is nothing more than an arbitrary rationalization, a way to dismiss unwanted evidence and restrict acceptable evidence into a subset that wouldn't be found according to the actual predictions of evolution.

New species form as existing species differentiate. It happens. It's happened for the entire history of life on Earth. You share a distant common ancestor with me, and a still more distant common ancestor with a dog, and a still more distant common ancestor with a tree.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 8:43 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 118 of 301 (703132)
07-15-2013 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
07-15-2013 7:49 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
That is a distinction witout a difference, Faith. Only science haters make that distinction. Also of note is that you only care about this distinction now that I have created an internal problem for you. Previously, you were fine calling ALL evolution just evolution. If we put forth miniml effort, we can point to where you have objected to forms of microevolution.

quote:
Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.[2] Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[2][3]
Sausage

quote:
House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution — evolution on a small scale.
(bolding mine)
Sausage (note: you previously accepted this as a source, so no bias for you)

quote:
Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.

Sausage

Finally: Can you once and for all make this easier and point to science you DO accept?


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 8:33 PM hooah212002 has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 119 of 301 (703133)
07-15-2013 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
07-15-2013 7:46 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Not that you can't know SOMETHING about it, but you can't know what you think you know, which is all conjecture. Like the meaning of the supposed order in the geologic column.

Go dig something up. Is what you now hold in your hand conjecture? No? THAT is how the geologic column is determined.

Your window of available sciences that you claim to accept is rapidly dwindling. Quick! Tell us what sciences you DO accept so we can dash your hopes and dreams and destroy any notion that they are compatible with your goat herder mentality.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 376 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 301 (703134)
07-15-2013 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by hooah212002
07-15-2013 8:08 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Previously, you were fine calling ALL evolution just evolution. If we put forth miniml effort, we can point to where you have objected to forms of microevolution.

No, I never intended by the word "evolution" in my remarks about it as unscientific to include "microevolution" which is a term somebody made up to make a necessary distinction in a certain context. Unfortunately in making such a statement I forget that evolutionists lump it all together and claim, without the slightest evidence, that microevolution becomes macroevolution. In the current context I've been using "evolution" ONLY to refer to macroevolution which is the contested theory after all. Again, creationists do not have a problem with microevolution, it is the way all varieties within species develop. I've written at great great length about all this on various threads here. It is absurd that this still needs to be argued after months and years of this debate. You just refuse to know anything about the Creationist point of view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by hooah212002, posted 07-15-2013 8:08 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by hooah212002, posted 07-15-2013 8:42 PM Faith 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 © 2021