Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 316 of 485 (571263)
07-31-2010 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 12:17 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Given the fact that we know that there is no such thing as the smallest unit, that things just keep getting smaller or disappear altogether if we look closely enough, we are virtually guaranteeing that the world is super-natural. Because this is what super-natural is, the inability of something to be able to exist in a natural world.
In many science fiction books the authors felt the need to have faster than light travel to make the plot work. Many faster than light drives were "developed" and explained, more or less. These became known as "double-talk drives" because they surpassed the rules of physics as we understand them, while being cursorily explained in the text.
You have done much the same with your explanations of things scientific. You ignore real learning and study and rely instead on double-talk in an effort to make your religious beliefs relevant to the real world.
Like the science fiction authors, you have failed miserably at science while still being entertaining!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 12:17 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 317 of 485 (571274)
07-31-2010 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2010 7:48 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
By what standard are you using to say that one piece of evidence is suitable [and another not]...
The scientific standard of evidence. Observable, repeatable, peer-reviewed and replicated evidence. What you have with your near-death stories and out of body experiences is anecdotal evidence. Were spirits to appear daily in the sky then the phenomena could be scientifically studied. Scientists could examine the electromagnetic and gravitational evidence and its meteorological influences and so forth to better understand the phenomena. The published research could be reviewed both before and after publication to judge the quality and begin forming a consensus within the scientific community.
Fossils have been scientifically studied and found to be a result of natural processes that were at work both long ago and today. Near-death and out-of-body experiences have not.
I keep asking you how you propose to study the supernatural, but since you're not answering let me suggest an experiment for studying near-death and out-of-body experiences. Scientists could seek out patients undergoing potentially risky procedures who are willing to participate in a scientific experiment where everything would be filmed and also monitored by scientific equipment to measure electromagnetic emissions and gravitational changes. The patient would be provided a list of questions that he would be asked to answer about what happened during the procedure and while he was under sedation.
Some hopefully small percentage of these patients will have near-death experiences, and scientists can study the differences in the answers and the scientific monitoring results between patients who did and did not have a near-death experience.
In the absence of scientific evidence, given what we know of physics and plain old human psychology it seems a near certainty to me that near-death experiences are hooey. When there's some scientific evidence for them then I'll happily reexamine my opinion. Your problem is that you're willing to form firmly held opinions with only anecdotal evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 7:48 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 6:56 AM Percy has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 318 of 485 (571279)
07-31-2010 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Percy
07-31-2010 2:50 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
How does a fossil tell you anything about the processes that brought it into being?
What is repeatable about studying a fossil?
You have asked me how to study the super-natural and I have answered-if people who are flatlined (dead) at the time a conversation about them is taking place, and they are able to recall that conversation-that is not evidence? Then what evidence does science have that people like sex-because they say so? Or that people who want to kill themselves are depressed? Or that some people are psychotic?
Have you ever watched Ghost Lab? They do study paranormal activity with cameras, with sound equipment, with electrical activity instruments.
Is that "scientific" enough?
I think the point is that you seem prepared to already decide that it is not possible to ever study any super-natural activity, so because of your preset notion-nothing is going to be satisfactory to you-even though you are perfectly happy to accept all kinds of speculation, and conjectural evidence for the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Percy, posted 07-31-2010 2:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2010 7:11 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 320 by Huntard, posted 07-31-2010 8:06 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 321 by Percy, posted 07-31-2010 8:36 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 322 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 8:48 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 326 by Parasomnium, posted 07-31-2010 10:39 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 319 of 485 (571280)
07-31-2010 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 6:56 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
What is repeatable about studying a fossil?
Anyone allowed access to the fossil can repeat the same tests on it and repeat the same observations, thereby independently verifying the conclusions drawn from those tests.
Have you ever watched Ghost Lab? They do study paranormal activity with cameras, with sound equipment, with electrical activity instruments.
Yes. Have you noticed that they never discover any actual ghosts?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 6:56 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 320 of 485 (571284)
07-31-2010 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 6:56 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
How does a fossil tell you anything about the processes that brought it into being?
Well, like any natural occurrence, fossilization leaves evidence, this evidence we can study. Scientists have done this, and so now know how fossils are formed.
What is repeatable about studying a fossil?
Everything, as long as you have access to the same fossil.
You have asked me how to study the super-natural and I have answered-if people who are flatlined (dead) at the time a conversation about them is taking place, and they are able to recall that conversation-that is not evidence?
No, for how do you know that is not a natural occurrence. Further, this is not a method of studying the supernatural. We asked you for a method to study the supernatural.
Then what evidence does science have that people like sex-because they say so? Or that people who want to kill themselves are depressed? Or that some people are psychotic?
I'm guessing the people that say they like sex/are depressed/are psychotic.
Have you ever watched Ghost Lab? They do study paranormal activity with cameras, with sound equipment, with electrical activity instruments.
Is that "scientific" enough?
Yes. And what have they ever found? Yep, nothing.
I think the point is that you seem prepared to already decide that it is not possible to ever study any super-natural activity, so because of your preset notion-nothing is going to be satisfactory to you-even though you are perfectly happy to accept all kinds of speculation, and conjectural evidence for the ToE.
Of course, we do no such thing. I wouldn't know a method of studying the supernatural, I have never been into contact with it. If you do have a method of studying the supernatural, please share it with us. Until that time, we really have no way to decide whether something is supernatural or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 6:56 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 321 of 485 (571286)
07-31-2010 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 6:56 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
Have you ever watched Ghost Lab?
No, I'm afraid I haven't heard of it. Have you ever watched Penn & Teller's Bullshit? Here's a link to their episode on ghost busters (standard mode is free, don't click on HD if you don't want to sign up; also, nudity alert!):
How does a fossil tell you anything about the processes that brought it into being?
Fossils are the mineralized bones of long dead creatures. The appearance of fossils through progressive geological layers reflects change over time. Genetics tells us how life just going about its business of living and reproducing must change over time because reproduction is not perfect and cannot create perfect copies. Fossils record life's history of changing forms due to imperfect reproduction combined with natural selection.
You can reject the inference, but this would require you to believe that ancient creatures reproduced via mechanisms not in evidence today, and it leaves you with no explanation for the change in fossil appearance over time.
What is repeatable about studying a fossil?
Crash answered this briefly. As he said, many scientists can study the same fossil. Even better, in many, many cases we have multiple specimens of the same fossil, and in some cases thousands and even tens of thousands of specimens. And the progressive change in fossil appearance over time appears in the geologic record at literally thousands and thousands of sites around the world. The opportunities for multiple scientists to study multiple specimens at or from multiple sites is what is meant by repeatable and replicable.
You have asked me how to study the super-natural and I have answered-if people who are flatlined (dead) at the time a conversation about them is taking place, and they are able to recall that conversation-that is not evidence?
That's the definition of anecdotal. Funny how these things never happen as soon as you start doing something as simple as making live videos of everything. There doesn't even have to be a scientist present to keep it from happening. Just bring a video camera and watch the supernatural phenomena disappear.
I think the point is that you seem prepared to already decide that it is not possible to ever study any super-natural activity...
On the contrary, I explained precisely how you would conduct a scientific study of near-death experiences. I stand willing and able to consider the scientific evidence for the supernatural as soon as you present some.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 6:56 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 10:31 AM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 322 of 485 (571288)
07-31-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 6:56 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
You have asked me how to study the super-natural and I have answered-if people who are flatlined (dead) at the time a conversation about them is taking place, and they are able to recall that conversation-that is not evidence?
It is not evidence of the super-natural. It is evidence that they at least believe they experienced something. However, you have not yet even provided a link to one such example.
Bolder-dash writes:
Have you ever watched Ghost Lab? They do study paranormal activity with cameras, with sound equipment, with electrical activity instruments.
Is that "scientific" enough?
Of course not. It is entertainment for some, a source of revenue for others.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 6:56 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 323 of 485 (571294)
07-31-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 12:08 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Boulder writes:
You are unwittingly making my point for me.
How so?
In what we know and consider to be our natural world, infinity can't exist
Why?
because if something is infinitely large, it is equally infinitely small.
What is this 'something' you are speak of. If you are speaking of spacetime, spacetime is not a 'something'. It is a mathematical model or construct and is not limited out by infinities. Let me clarify, the units I speak of when I said 'spacetime itself can be divided infinitesimally into smaller and smaller units' are not physical units but units of measurement.
If that is the case, how can they exist in the world we know
Why would they not?
How can parts of an atom that make up your body be infinitely small?
What parts of an atom are you talking about? Even 1-dimensional strings as proposed by supersymmetric string theory are not infinately small. Furthermore, spacetime itself becomes a 'sea' of unpredictable quantum affects before the level of infintestimal. This of course does not mean that infintestimal subdivisions cannot still occur. However, the term 'parts of an atom' much less matter or energy have no meaning at this level.
How thin is the skin that makes up your body?
It depends on how old the skin is and where it located on the body.
We have instruments to view it microscopically, all the way down to its thinnest point, if we keeping magnifying it over and over again, how thin is your skin? Does it disapear?
This is an argument of semantics. Skin is tissue. Tissue is made up of cells. Where skin cells are seperate from the underlying muscular and fat cells is the division between skin and non-skin. So there is a limit to how far we can microscopically go down and distinguish how thick/thin skin is.
So the answer is no, skin does not disapear, at least not microscopically.
You can't just take the cop-out that Jar does and just say this is sophomore salad.
Well it is.
We are talking about things we know, and what we know is that if we delve deeply enough into the existence of matter, at some point it ceases to exit as a separate entity.
You are correct at some point matter ceases to exist the more deeply we delve , but what does this have to do with whether infinities in nature mean that the supernatural exists (whatever the heck that means).
You have just shown that physics and mathematics is either wrong, or we live in a world beyond the natural that we know.
Not only is this a false dilemna but it makes no logical sense. If physics and math are wrong by what criteria are we using to determine this????? And how do we live in a world beyond the natural if the very word 'natural' means the reality we live in????
I agree with Jar, this is a sophomoric word salad. You have little to no concept of the words you are throwing together. This is like Einstein arguing with a 3 year old on the concept of relativity.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 12:08 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 10:36 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 324 of 485 (571295)
07-31-2010 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Percy
07-31-2010 8:36 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Gee, funny I thought when you said repeatable, that you meant the experiments could be repeated, not that more than one person can look at the same evidence.
If that's your criteria for repeatable, I guess lots of things are repeatable.
And are you now ruling out all evidence that is anecdotal as well? Is all anecdotal evidence invalid?
That's a whole lot of "scientific" studies that you now wish to wipe out. I guess all of psychology is doomed to the dustbin of pseudo-science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Percy, posted 07-31-2010 8:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Percy, posted 07-31-2010 11:16 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 325 of 485 (571296)
07-31-2010 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by DevilsAdvocate
07-31-2010 10:22 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
I am pretty sure that even Einstein could understand that if you look closely enough at a cell, that one can not determine where the outer edge of it exists, and where the space next to it begins.
So perhaps you better not compare your self to Einstein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-31-2010 10:22 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-31-2010 10:56 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 326 of 485 (571297)
07-31-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 6:56 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
I think the point is that you seem prepared to already decide that it is not possible to ever study any super-natural activity [...]
There is a difference between studying super-natural phenomena and studying claims of super-natural phenomena. Since science can only study natural phenomena, anything genuinely super-natural - if such things exist - is by definition beyond the reach of science. But what science can do is study claims of super-natural phenomena, on the assumption that, notwithstanding the claim, either something natural is going on, which can then be assessed and provided an explanation for, or nothing is happening at all, which then puts the burden of proof on the claimant.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 6:56 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 10:47 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 327 of 485 (571300)
07-31-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Parasomnium
07-31-2010 10:39 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
They can study claims of the super-natural-and if the claims can not be proven false...then?
Just wondering, because I know of one theory that makes claims, and says if you can't prove it wrong it must be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Parasomnium, posted 07-31-2010 10:39 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 10:49 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 331 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-31-2010 11:01 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 332 by Parasomnium, posted 07-31-2010 11:04 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 328 of 485 (571301)
07-31-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 10:47 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
Just wondering, because I know of one theory that makes claims, and says if you can't prove it wrong it must be true.
I hope that you are not just once again posting untruths and can support that assertion?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 10:47 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 329 of 485 (571302)
07-31-2010 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 12:17 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Given the fact that we know that there is no such thing as the smallest unit,
What do you mean by the term "smallest unit"? Do you mean unit of measurement or a physical substance? Either way we do not know if there is such a thing as the 'smallest unit'.
that things just keep getting smaller or disappear altogether if we look closely enough, we are virtually guaranteeing that the world is super-natural.
What do you mean by 'disapear'? If you mean by 'disapear' by human eyes than there there are whole inner worlds that are not visibile by the naked eye. If you mean by our strongest electron and scanning micrscopes, there are still smaller bits of matter that exist that we cannot physically 'see' or 'detect' using these intruments. Further, quarks and other subatomic particles exist which we can deduce based on indirectly observation of their interactions with other particles. And since light waves themselves are larger than many of the subatomic particles, the term 'disapear' has no meaning. Still smaller 1 dimensional strings and such can be deduced based on fitting in current quantum constructs and theorems. So basically you using the term 'disapear' is rather ambiguous and makes little sense at these quantums levels.
In the end, whether something is visible or invisible to the eye or any other detector has no relavence on whether it exists or not.
If we had found out that the smallest thing that could ever exist is say, an atom, and nothing can be smaller, than we might have reason to say we have a defined, natural world, that can be explained. But since we already know this is not the case, and we know that at some point when we look closely enough, all matter vanishes, we have just defined that our world is super-natural.
So you are saying all of the quantum world is supernatural. If this is true and the macroscopic world consists of everything in the quantum world than the entire universe is supernatural. If our universe is supernatural than there is nothing that is not supernatural (thus no natural). Good job, you basically just semantically replaced the word natural with the word supernatural (natural=supernatural) without differentiating between the two. So how does this prove God exists?
So, to all those who want evidence of a super natural world, I say physics has already given you that evidence
Not it hasn't. You proved nothing except your own ignorance of science, logic and semantics.
Life disappears into another world when we look closely enough
Good grief

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 12:17 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 330 of 485 (571305)
07-31-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 10:36 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
I am pretty sure that even Einstein could understand that if you look closely enough at a cell, that one can not determine where the outer edge of it exists, and where the space next to it begins.
'Existance', outer edge' and 'space' at this level does not have the meaning you probably think it does. And what does this have to do with the supernatural or God???

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 10:36 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024