Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
34 online now:
ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, Theodoric (8 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,847 Year: 16,883/19,786 Month: 1,008/2,598 Week: 254/251 Day: 25/58 Hour: 11/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for the Keys/RAZD Debate
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 16 of 57 (406253)
06-18-2007 10:32 AM


Comments of Keys' Most Recent Reply
Here are some comments on Keys' Message 19.

At this point it is becoming clear that Keys really does have only one argument. It doesn't really matter what explanations and evidence RAZD submits for consideration, Keys will always reply, in effect, "You don't know what conditions and physical laws were like back then."

Hopefully at some point Keys will realize that his argument goes both ways. If it's really impossible to know what conditions were like before 2500 BC, then he can't know that they were different.

Unfortunately for Keys, and as I mentioned earlier in this thread, we do have evidence for what conditions were like back then, and for much further back than 2500 BC.

In response to RAZD's point about tree rings correlating with 14C dating, Keys responds:

FALSE!!! Speculation. Unbased! You assume a same past state where the carbon only got there as it now does. FIRST you need a same state, then I will believe you. Meanwhile, you are simply talking a myth.

This is a new one to me. Usually creationists argue that 14C dating is invalid, but Keys is arguing that the carbon in ancient trees did not build up through growth, but through some other process that he describes a bit further on:

For all we know, the results of the life processes of trees could have produced carbon, and simply not worked as it now does, with this state, this light, these physical universe laws, etc.

So Keys is proposing that trees might have manufactured their own carbon? Which would require nuclear fission or fusion? Which would have produced radioactive byproducts lethal to life? And trees manufactured this carbon in a way that correlated perfectly with the tree rings?

quote:
quote:Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day.

So what, we are talking about the past, and if there was no decay, why would there even be these rays entering anywhere?

We have evidence that cosmic rays (charged atomic nuclei) exist everywhere throughout the universe, since collisions of cosmic rays with the atoms in interstellar gas and nebula produce gamma rays which we can detect. We know that there were cosmic rays thousands and millions and billions of years ago.

Keys wants the discussion to include God and Bible and the supernatural, but without citations from the Bible and without evidence, he's just making stuff up, and in the end he's practicing neither Christianity nor science, just fantasy.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PMOC, posted 06-18-2007 4:40 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
PMOC
Member (Idle past 4013 days)
Posts: 41
From: USA
Joined: 06-01-2007


Message 17 of 57 (406278)
06-18-2007 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
06-18-2007 10:32 AM


Where do you find the patience..
to debate persons who think such as Keys?

How do you debate someone who sees that the sky is blue, sees that the sky has always been blue, sees evidence for a blue sky dating back to the history of time, but believes that the sky was brown?

How do you debate someone whose only defense is that you cant "prove" that the sky wasnt brown at some point? I guess a better question is "why" debate someone who thinks such as this? Is there a success rate > 0 for such exercises?

Where do you find the patience to deal with someone who just proffers ridiculous statements without evidence and then DEMANDS that you provide the evidence that his statements are false, and then when you comply, dismisses said evidence because you cant prove that evidence existed to the beginning of time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 06-18-2007 10:32 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Nighttrain, posted 06-18-2007 8:38 PM PMOC has not yet responded
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2007 9:05 PM PMOC has responded
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 06-18-2007 9:08 PM PMOC has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 57 (406279)
06-18-2007 4:59 PM


In Message 14(KEYS and RAZD)[/color])< !--UE-->:

keys writes:

The change I have in mind, was after the flood. It is founded on bible.

What change is he typing about?

Something in the Bible that happened after the flood that could cause tree rings to not represent years.

Seriously, what in the Bible is he referring to?


  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2252 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 19 of 57 (406288)
06-18-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PMOC
06-18-2007 4:40 PM


Re: Where do you find the patience..
Where do you find the patience to deal with someone who just proffers ridiculous statements without evidence and then DEMANDS that you provide the evidence that his statements are false, and then when you comply, dismisses said evidence because you cant prove that evidence existed to the beginning of time?

Hi, PMOC, and welcome to EvC. We could tackle the idea of replying to wild claims on two levels. First up, replies tend to focus on a solid argument (:D) not only to a poster, but to lurkers who may have the same challenge, but are reluctant to voice their claims.

Secondly, apologists tend to challenge responders by dipping into previously-unknown territory, so it it gives a chance to think on your feet, as well as do the research. No matter how far out the claims, there is a sneaking suspicion for both posters that, possibly, vaguely,against all reason, magic MIGHT be involved. Old myths die hard. :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PMOC, posted 06-18-2007 4:40 PM PMOC has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 20 of 57 (406291)
06-18-2007 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PMOC
06-18-2007 4:40 PM


Re: Where do you find the patience..
Welcome to the fray PMOC

Where do you find the patience to deal with someone who just proffers ridiculous statements without evidence ...

The goal is not to convert the opponent, that is wishful thinking in most cases, rather the goal is to educate those reading the thread that are not aware of the facts, the arguments and the thinking that goes into the sciences. The goal is to reach the next generation before they get solidified in their denial of reality.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PMOC, posted 06-18-2007 4:40 PM PMOC has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PMOC, posted 06-18-2007 9:34 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 21 of 57 (406292)
06-18-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PMOC
06-18-2007 4:40 PM


Re: Where do you find the patience..
PMOC writes:

Where do you find the patience...


Just in case you don't know, RAZD along with Percy, jar, Anglagard, and a dozen others on here are old timers. They have rediculous amounts of patience. I personally don't have a lot of patience. This is why I try to stay away from debates that RAZD often gets into. When a person insists against something obvious, like the color of a red rose, I tend to lose my patience because I know that nothing I can say will be able to counter the person's illusion.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PMOC, posted 06-18-2007 4:40 PM PMOC has not yet responded

  
PMOC
Member (Idle past 4013 days)
Posts: 41
From: USA
Joined: 06-01-2007


Message 22 of 57 (406295)
06-18-2007 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
06-18-2007 9:05 PM


Re: Where do you find the patience..
Well, you are all far more patient men than I. After the 3rd or 4th "because the bible says so" I pretty much just walk away. A lot of these threads have definitely been informative and even inspired a great deal of reading on cosomology on my part. Thanks for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2007 9:05 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 06-18-2007 9:46 PM PMOC has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 23 of 57 (406298)
06-18-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PMOC
06-18-2007 9:34 PM


The other benefit...
You forget about another benefit of such discussions. Especially with someone as patient and thorough as RASD involved.

While it would be nice to have a vaguely rational creationist to discuss that sort of thing we it seems that the somewhat rational know enough to stay away from discussions of that kind. They may just recognize that they don't have a leg to stand on.

The is a benefit to getting the likes of keys (we've seen him before, btw, he's a liar as well as irrational) to post what he is doing is how utterly stupid it makes the whole creationist camp look.

It is possible to use such threads to show those who don't know much about the arguement how utterly stupid the creationists are. It can help weaken them a bit.

Of course, the majority of Christians cringe to see such nonsense posted because they can get grouped in with someone who claims to be a Christian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PMOC, posted 06-18-2007 9:34 PM PMOC has not yet responded

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


Message 24 of 57 (406472)
06-20-2007 10:15 AM


Comments on Simple's Message 31
Most of Simple's Message 31 can be summed up as, "I don't believe you, prove it!" Simple presents no evidence of his own. His position seems to be, "I don't know, and you don't, either."

To his credit, Simple does spend some time attempting to address the radiocarbon dating of tree rings, but if he understands how radiocarbon dating works then it isn't apparent to me. The problem that RAZD has submitted for Simple's consideration is that the 14C/12C ratio in each tree ring yields an age consistent with that indicated by counting tree rings. This would seem to put the kibosh on the possibility of many tree rings forming in a single year. To rebut RAZD's data, Simple needs to find a mechanism that changes 14C concentrations in strict concert with tree ring formation, but he doesn't seem to understand that. He also seems unaware that RAZD is now adding correlations with dating data from other sources, and Simple seems unaware that with each new piece of correlated dating data that his explanatory task becomes astronomically more difficult. The only thing that keeps Simple going is that he doesn't understand the arguments being made.

I close with a list of Simple's most brilliant rebuttals:

simple writes:

So???

...

Prove it!!! Don't just rattle off a story as if it meant something!

...

There was pollen. Wow. How impressive. So??

...

I think the ice age was after the flood anyhow. So..??

My advice to Simple is to only reply to the arguments and data he understands, or if he understands them to provide actual evidence and/or argument in rebuttal. Rebuttals like "So???" and "How impressive" do nothing to advance the discussion.

--Percy


    
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 25 of 57 (406481)
06-20-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
06-17-2007 5:36 PM


Re: The problems with accelerated time scales
The problem with what Keys is saying is that you can't just simply make decay "faster". Aside from the fact that there is no mechanism it speaks about decay as if it were some independant phenomena rather than an effect of weak force interactions. You could make decays slower by changing particle masses, but that's a little severe (and I really don't see a mechanism to do that) or have time-dependant coupling constants or other stuff. Again however all this stuff has really noticable consequences which we don't see.
Making radiation "faster" would have very non-trivial consequences, because you'd need the modify the weak force which is fundamental for other stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 06-17-2007 5:36 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by bluegenes, posted 06-20-2007 3:43 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 26 of 57 (406494)
06-20-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Son Goku
06-20-2007 1:23 PM


Re: The problems with accelerated time scales
Son Goku writes:

The problem with what Keys is saying is that you can't just simply make decay "faster".

If you're an interventionist God, you can do anything. That's the problem with the debate. Once magic is allowed, then the laws of the universe can be broken. On such terms, a creationist can always do what nineteenth century young earthers did, and resort to "the devil laid down the bones of the dinosaurs to delude us" type arguments.

Keys (Simple) has permission to use the bible as evidence. That means that there's "evidence" for the existence of Satan, "evidence" that miracles happen, and "evidence" for a supremely powerful, omniscient God who can do whatever the hell he wants to.

Making decay faster may take a miracle, but on the terms of this debate, so what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Son Goku, posted 06-20-2007 1:23 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 06-20-2007 5:57 PM bluegenes has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 27 of 57 (406505)
06-20-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by bluegenes
06-20-2007 3:43 PM


Miracles tell us something..
Making decay faster may take a miracle, but on the terms of this debate, so what?

Because when you add up all the things necessary to explain away what we see it tells you something about this god. It tells you something that simple won't like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by bluegenes, posted 06-20-2007 3:43 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 06-21-2007 3:59 AM NosyNed has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 28 of 57 (406556)
06-21-2007 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by NosyNed
06-20-2007 5:57 PM


Re: Miracles tell us something..
NosyNed writes:

Because when you add up all the things necessary to explain away what we see it tells you something about this god. It tells you something that simple won't like.

I agree really, with the slight ammendment that adding up all the necessary miracles (and you'll need a calculator!) will tell us something that we already know, and that simple won't like only in the unlikely event of his ceasing to practise the extraordinary levels of self-deception required to hold his beliefs in the first place.;)

What I really meant was that a debate with the bible as evidence cannot technically be won. I didn't want to imply that it's not worth having it.

It's interesting to speculate as to whether or not a small part of simple's mind does know he's wrong. I think the answer's yes, otherwise I'd have used the word "ignorance" instead of the phrase "self-deception" above. All creationists of the type who try and argue the case have underlying doubts somewhere. Plus a yawning chasm of fear that the comforting father figure of their childhood indoctrination just might not be there, which is really what it's all about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 06-20-2007 5:57 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2007 11:17 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 29 of 57 (406574)
06-21-2007 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by bluegenes
06-21-2007 3:59 AM


simple's problem, RASD's mistake
I think RASD is doing marvelously with his presentation however I think he is making a mistake; as utterly clear as RASD's writing it simple is too, well, simple to understand it.

I think simple may not realize how stupid his answers are because he doesn't understand what he is being told. If RASD wants to move the debate forward (which with the 'opponent' he has is probably not possible for other reasons than the intellectual weakness of his opponent) he needs to make it yet simpler and clearer. Some baby steps and baby talk is needed. Of course, even that simple won't read but it will make it clearer to those with IQ's above 80.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 06-21-2007 3:59 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 06-21-2007 12:23 PM NosyNed has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 30 of 57 (406584)
06-21-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by NosyNed
06-21-2007 11:17 AM


The goal is not to convince simple.
Hopefully, the true audience and success stories from the debate are those who might currently believe the YEC fantasy but who will read the data presented by RAZD and realize that the universe presented by simple simply never existed.

The next step is to realize the God presented by simple also never existed.

The threat, from my Christian theological perspective is that unfortunately, many folk also make the jump to the conclusion that since the God simple created did not exist, GOD does not exist.

While I honestly believe in the larger scheme of things that is not a very important issue, I personally wish that there was a way to help many of those folk realize that just because simple created some picayune little god, there might still be a real GOD, one far larger, far more magnificent than they ever imagined.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2007 11:17 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2007 1:41 PM jar 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 © 2019