Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8962 total)
110 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (AdminPhat), xongsmith (3 members, 107 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,726 Year: 2,474/23,288 Month: 665/1,809 Week: 97/225 Day: 28/69 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)
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 55 of 336 (619619)
06-10-2011 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
06-10-2011 12:29 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
Race, as a classification, has value to Affirmative Action, no?

I say no.
The problem with race in America is that we haven't adequately defined it.

We're still working off the Reconstruction South's definition of "black". One drop of black blood.

A 100% African immigrant is black.
So is someone who's 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/16 or 1/32.

Basically if you declare yourself "black", who's gonna question it.

The same deal isn't working for 1/16th Latino. Or 1/16th Asian.

Now couple that with the fact that America is a melting pot, and you're hard pressed to find anyone who is 100% one thing or another. So, then we've got the problem of determining if Tiger Woods is black or Asian. Should he get scholarships from two different programs? Does he have to declare that he's one thing or another.

The whole system is a complete mess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2011 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 5:10 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 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

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 128 of 336 (635400)
09-29-2011 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by DubyaDeeEm
09-11-2011 5:47 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
I realize that as a believer in Darwinism logic may not be your strong point

Let's talk about logic, shall we?

What specifically do you believe is 'unproven' in regards to evolution?

I'll give you a list. You tell me.

1) Genes code for features.
2) Genes are passed from parent to child.
3) Mutations can occur in genes introducing changes which were not seen in the parent but are present in the child.
4) A mutation can have either good, bad or neutral results.
5) Mutations which benefit the individual increase their chances of survival. Mutations which harm the individual decrease their chances of survival.
6) Only organisms with similar DNA can successfully reproduce with one another. If they are too different, they either fail or produce sterile offspring.

Six simple statements. Can you disprove any of them?

You wanted to talk logic, let's talk logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by DubyaDeeEm, posted 09-11-2011 5:47 PM DubyaDeeEm has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Hawkins, posted 10-14-2011 10:24 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(2)
Message 132 of 336 (637334)
10-15-2011 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Hawkins
10-14-2011 10:24 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
That depends on what conclusion you are trying to draw from those points.

No. I asked you if you could disprove any of the points.

I have not yet drawn any conclusions at all.

I assume from your statement that "1+1=2" that you accept the points I gave as being valid.

Is that correct?

If not, can you point to a specific point that I made that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it?

Similarly, if the conclusion you are trying to draw is that evolution exists to all species, you should allow others to use any species to follow your theory to try to falsify what you claim.

Now I would like to use human as species to try to falsify your claim. Can you provide a way for me to use human as a testing example to test your claim.

Certainly.

A group of humans lives in the Congo.
Some of those humans have genes that offer no immunity to malaria.
Some of those humans have genes which offer immunity to malaria.
The entire group is exposed to malaria regularly.
Children without immunity frequently die of the disease.
Children with immunity frequently survive the disease.

If the group starts off with 50% with immunity and 50% without, in very short order the group without immunity will shrink. Eventually they will disappear completely.

That's because dead children do not reach puberty and reproduce.

Now replace 'human' in the above with any living organism you know, you'll notice that ToE can hardly scientifically apply to 99.99% species on earth.

Of course it can. However, it's ridiculous to replace only "human". You would also need to replace "Congo" and "Malaria".

For example:
A group of _fish_ lives in _the ocean_.
Some of the fish have genes which camouflage them from _predators_.
Some of the fish do not have genes which camouflage them from _predators_.

Or:
A group of _turtles_ lives in _the swamp_.
Some of the turtles have genes which help with mating.
Some of the turtles do not have genes which help with mating

The variations are ENDLESS.

You claim all species shall follow ToE to evolve, however you can't setup a model workable to all species for others to test or attempt to falsify, that's not science no matter how evident think it might be.

I just did.

Here's the model:

(SUBJECT GROUP) possess (VARIATION) and is exposed to (HARMFUL EXTERNAL FORCE) or (POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL RESOURCE) over time.

Humans possess genes protecting against malaria and are exposed to malaria over time.
Fish possess genes helpful in camoflage and are exposed to predators over time.
Turtles possess genes helpful in mating and are exposed to potential mates over time.

Exact same model.

In this case, your theory may be right and may be not. It's just not a science!

In what way is it not science.

I can set up a scenario which will produce data. I can predict the outcome of the data. I can run the test and see what my outcome would be.

I can further demonstrate falsifiability.

If humans with malaria immunity are LESS likely to survive to reproduce than humans without malaria immunity, then my experiment is falsified.

The _BEST_ you can offer is that some experiments are unethical or too time consuming (redwoods take centuries to grow) to be practical to run.

That's not a valid criticism of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Hawkins, posted 10-14-2011 10:24 PM Hawkins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Hawkins, posted 10-15-2011 10:39 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 133 of 336 (637335)
10-15-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Hawkins
10-14-2011 10:46 PM


If by chance what you mean is that how ID should be taught. ID just doesn't assume that "God doesn't exist". It assumes that a deity may or may not exist,

Dembski, one of the fathers of ID, has gone on record to say that the designer is "The Christian God".

The fact that ID is VERBATIM Creationism with the word "creationist" replaced by "design proponents" (see Coyote's link above) is more than enough evidence to prove that any claims that ID is neutral in regard to "God" are dishonest at best.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Hawkins, posted 10-14-2011 10:46 PM Hawkins has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 1:51 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 136 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 2:12 AM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 135 of 336 (637345)
10-15-2011 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by IamJoseph
10-15-2011 1:51 AM


YAWN
I too see ID as a shy attempt of acknowledging Creationism - for which there are no scientific alternatives. At least they figured that out. There is only ONE kind of Creationism:

That which states the creation is finite, lists actual historical names and items which could only exist or not exist in its described time and state and be able to withstand scientific knowledge with no contradictions 1000's of years later. That is why forum headings are seen as CREATION VS EVOLUTION 1000's of years later - like today.

Pls call me when someone comes up with an alternative to Creationism based on an absolutely finite universe. I will hand you my nobel prize.

Repeating points that have been disproven doesn't suddenly make you right. It just makes you dishonest.

As I pointed out before, you can't prove that the Universe is finite. That's an unsupported claim.

Second, MANY MANY MANY people on the thread have already pointed out a number of errors in Creationism, not the least of which is the fact that there are multiple versions of Creationism with timelines that vary so absolutely radically as to completely negate one another.

And, ALL of these timelines are based on the same single source of evidence which itself has been demonstrated to contain errors.

So, you've got nothing piled on nothing which is contradicted by others using the same nothing.

Hardly a position to hold.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 1:51 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 2:29 AM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(4)
Message 137 of 336 (637350)
10-15-2011 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 2:12 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
Since you seem ignorant of the definitions of each ID and Creationism i'll quote them. Then, you will be informed, then, you can stop being ignorant.

Seems to me that you're the one taking pride in your ignorance.

The Dover transcriptions revealed exactly what we are talking about: "cDesign Proponentists".

This was a typo in the "new" version of the text book - the one that was "Intelligent Design based"
The "old" version of the text book has "creationists".

Do you know how you get from "creationists" to "cdesign proponentists"?

You have a careless worker go through your textbook file on the computer and copy and paste "design proponents" over the word "creationist".

Now, the rest of the text DIDN'T change.

So, you can keep your definitions.

You tell me, if I replace subject A with subject B through out an entire book and nothing else changes what does that say about subjects A and B?

They are the SAME.

Of course, you would know all this if you weren't so damn...

what's the word? Oh, right...

IGNORANT

ps, your picture is Jesus getting smooshed by a cross.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 2:12 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 2:41 AM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(4)
Message 140 of 336 (637357)
10-15-2011 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by IamJoseph
10-15-2011 2:29 AM


Re: YAWN
Its not unsupported:

1. The uni was not infinite 10 seconds ago - its expanding. Hello?!
2. Nothing in the universe is w/o subject to change: an infinite cannot change and still be infinite.
3. An infinite cannot contain finite stuff; a finite cannot contain infinite stuff.

1) The universe can be both expanding and infinite at the same time. You are assuming that the expansion that happening around us is connected to some sort of edge getting further away. There's nor reason to assume that. You can be a part of infinite space AND have things around you getting further away from you at the same time.

2) Of course things can change within an infinite space. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

3) Of course an infinite space could contain finite stuff, however, there's no evidence that the Universe contains "finite stuff". We can only see a certain amount of the Universe. Beyond that point, we have no idea how much "more stuff" there is or isn't.

So, again, your claim that the universe is "finite" is NOT supported.

There is no multiple versions

One group states that the Bible CLEARLY shows that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
One group states that the Bible CLEARLY shows that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.
One group claims that the dinosaurs drowned in the flood.
One group claims that the dinosaurs were on the Ark.
One group claims that the dinosaur fossils were hidden by the devil to trick us.

That's 5 different versions right there, all based on the EXACT same source material. All supported by the EXACT same level of belief.

They can't all be valid and if one of them is invalid, then all of them lose their evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 2:29 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 5:22 AM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 141 of 336 (637358)
10-15-2011 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 2:41 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
You are not at all worth taking serious anymore one bit. You are a complete and utter joke. Your a sad individual. I really can;t believe the level of your maturity.

Awww, did baby get sad sad and go cry cry.

Here's a little tip for you. Don't step up if you can't back it up.

You tried to play big man, you got slap down like a bitch ass punk. Now you just wanna toss insults.

Laughable.

Oh and it's YOU'RE not YOUR you jackass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 2:41 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 5:30 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 144 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 5:45 AM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 154 of 336 (637382)
10-15-2011 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by IamJoseph
10-15-2011 5:22 AM


Re: YAWN
Then it was not infinite 10 seconds ago before it expanded.

Math quiz for you.

(infinity) = (infinity)
(infinity)+10= ?

Then you misunderstand what change actually is. Technically, when something is changed - whatever changes it transcends it; the changed entity is no longer. That is the application here. Infinity is not subject to change - that is why everything in the universe is finite - it is subject to change;that is also why there is nothing in the universe which is not subject to change. Without change there can be no death or decay.

Ridiculous.

If you have an infinitely large collection of cue balls, they extend out in rows and columns forever.
You can still take a magic marker and draw an X on one of them.
Drawing an X on a cue ball at your present location does not negate the existence of the rest of the cue balls.

Everything we see in the universe is finite.

Because everything we see is limited by what light can reach us.

If you live in an infinite environment filled with evenly spaces pillars, there is no point at which you can stand where you can see everything.

At all points, some pillars will be blocking your view.

AND, your vision is limited by your ability to distinguish objects at great distance, so even if you could find a vantage point, you can not see further than you can see.

I don't know if you ever played peek-a-bo as a baby, but your mommy was still there even when you couldn't see her.

Your math is poor. The age of the uni X expansion velocity gives a reasonably good ratio of the universe's limits.

Totality. We can observe X amount of the universe, therefore the universe is a certain age. Because the universe is a certain age, then it can only be X big.

It's true that we can not see beyond the background radiation. That does not mean that there is nothing behind the background radiation.

Again, peekaboo. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Its like finding a car on Mars and allocating it to weird weather patterns.

We can just as easily say:
"Its like finding a pile of eroded gravel at the bottom of a cliff and allocating it to a Jewish Wizard."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 5:22 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 9:56 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 10:06 AM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(5)
Message 155 of 336 (637384)
10-15-2011 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 5:45 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
Remember now Nuggin, argue the postion and not the person. When you argue the person like you are, it makes it look like you are clueless to the topic and instead are resorting to a low level of debating tactics. Sad bro, sad.

Oh really?

Let's look at your quotes over the last two posts, shall we?

you seem ignorant

you can stop being ignorant.

You are not at all worth taking serious

You are a complete and utter joke

Your a sad individual.

really can;t believe the level of your maturity.

That's 6 insults in about 5 LINES of total text. And one of those lines was "and".

I'm reminded of something someone once told me:

Remember now Nuggin, argue the postion and not the person. When you argue the person like you are, it makes it look like you are clueless to the topic and instead are resorting to a low level of debating tactics. Sad bro, sad.

So, Chucky, I'm going to quote Chucky here and tell you -
You look like you are clueless on the topic and instead are resorting to low level debate tactics.

Sad bro, sad.

..... owned.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 5:45 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 156 of 336 (637385)
10-15-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 5:51 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
It has nothing to do with the ID theory, incidently. You know?

Technically, nothing has anything to do with "ID theory". There is no "ID theory".

There's "ID theology".
There's "ID PR"

But there's not "theory" of ID.

There's no ID experiments.
There's no ID falsifiability.
There's no ID predictions.
There's no ID mechanism.
There's no ID limitations.

Here's a tip:
Don't use terms like "theory" if you don't know what they mean.

Someone on the thread. Can't quite remember who.... oh, right. YOU.... seems to like playing dictionary.

Well, go look up "scientific theory" and then bury your head in the sand.

I await your predictably sad reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 5:51 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(2)
Message 158 of 336 (637390)
10-15-2011 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 7:21 AM


"Less true"
Oh, I know you've heard that a million times. So what, it doesn't make it any less true.

A little math for you.

Something can't be "less true" when it's 0% true.

He's wrong. Repeating him doesn't make him right no matter how desperately you want him to be.

I eagerly await your childish reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 7:21 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(2)
Message 159 of 336 (637391)
10-15-2011 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by IamJoseph
10-15-2011 9:56 AM


Re: YAWN
No such thing as Infinity Plus 10 or minus 10.

Because the answer would still be infinity.

You are hooked on this idea that there can not be change within an infinite system.

That's wrong.

Repeating what you believe doesn't make it right.

Infinity is not required to be static.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 9:56 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 10:18 AM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 165 of 336 (637411)
10-15-2011 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by IamJoseph
10-15-2011 5:30 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
I accept the Genesis claim as scientific

That doesn't make it scientific.

In order for the claim to be scientific, you would have to be able to present an experiment through which we could falsify at least one of the mechanisms behind the claim.

What mechanisms are given in Genesis?
What experiment can we run to test one of those mechanisms?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 5:30 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 7:52 PM Nuggin 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 © 2020