Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8924 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2019 10:47 PM
23 online now:
Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,867 Year: 14,903/19,786 Month: 1,626/3,058 Week: 404/868 Day: 43/70 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?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 20 of 301 (702849)
07-11-2013 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
07-11-2013 8:05 PM


Light year whoops
This is a reply to marc9000, not NoNukes.

Almost 57 trillion miles?

How about 5.87 trillion miles?

Scientists try to be very careful about the accuracy of their statements.

That's something worth emulating.

Edited by Coyote, : Wrong reply button.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 07-11-2013 8:05 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 56 of 301 (703012)
07-13-2013 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ringo
07-13-2013 11:58 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
I don't think there's much difference in brain evolution between the early Hebrews and us. It's what we have observed in nature (despite Faith's clams) that has enabled us to conclude that much of what the Hebrews wrote was wrong.

And beginning to give up old tribal superstitions is what allows science to find some answers.

But so many cling to those old tribal superstitions and reject overwhelming evidence.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 07-13-2013 11:58 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 64 of 301 (703036)
07-14-2013 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
07-13-2013 10:58 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
I said that the sciences don't need the Old Earth concept.

Fields of science do not just discard evidence and theories because of some old tribal myths that may be disproved by them.

And further, science is an interwoven whole--you can't just take certain sections and discard them without affecting other sections.

For example, if you claim that radiometric dating is inaccurate, you must explain why, and your explanation must also fit with other data and theory. No young earther has yet been able to do this. Even the RATE boys, after spending over a million dollars in creationist money had to give up and resort to belief--the evidence they themselves generated agreed with science and refuted the young earth position!

In other words, you are just rejecting some fields of science because they don't fit with your favorite old tribal myths, not because there is any real scientific evidence against those fields.

And you try to make up quite clever rationalizations to justify your chosen beliefs, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, but I find that contrary to everything that it means to be a rational human being.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 10:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 12:39 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 77 of 301 (703071)
07-15-2013 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
07-14-2013 11:51 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Ever tried explaining to one of them what (for example) the second law of thermodynamics is...

I had, on another website, a creationist lecturing me on the laws of thermal documents!

And another telling me, confidently, that the odds against evolution were 1720 against.

They couldn't understand who so many folks were laughing at them.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2013 11:51 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 84 of 301 (703078)
07-15-2013 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
07-15-2013 9:40 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
YECs have no problem with real science, true science, useful science, although you dislike the fact intensely.

And you define "real science, true science, useful science" as anything that does not contradict your old tribal myths--no matter what the evidence really shows.

What a crock!


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 9:40 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 10:07 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 87 of 301 (703081)
07-15-2013 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
07-15-2013 10:07 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
The stuff you want to include is all mental conjurings with no useful purpose.

Absolute nonsense.

Why don't you leave science to those who actually know something about it?

"Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise: and he that shuts his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 10:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 121 of 301 (703135)
07-15-2013 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
07-15-2013 7:23 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
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.

Wrong again!

The prehistoric past is easy to research, no living witnesses needed.

Archaeologists and a score of other -ologists do it all the time, using the same scientific method used by other fields of science.

But you don't have a problem with those other fields because your old tribal myths aren't being contradicted, as is the case with virtually anything involving prehistory. So you have to rationalize your beliefs by inaccurately differentiating "science" (that which you don't agree with) from "real science" (that which you do agree with).

What a crock!


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


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 122 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 8:38 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 126 of 301 (703140)
07-15-2013 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
07-15-2013 8:38 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Archaeology deals with human time frames, not prehistoric time.

That is a very ignorant statement, and one that is factually incorrect as well.

I don't think I have ever met someone who can be so consistently wrong. As a scientist, I can imagine you might be worthy of study.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 8:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 135 of 301 (703149)
07-15-2013 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
07-15-2013 9:16 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Creationists make a distinction between that which is observable, which is amenable to scientific method, and that which is not observable, such as macroevolution, which is purely conjecture.

Creationists want to pick the things they like from the vast body of science and discard the things they don't like, and they try to rationalize some reason to separate those two.

But all of science uses the same scientific method, so creationists look increasingly silly as they try to find some logical reason to accept one set of findings while rejecting others.

But we all know the real reason has nothing to do with science at all--it is adherence to old tribal myths that is the real reason for picking one part of science and discarding another.

In other words: it is an irrational rationalization.

And pretty funny to watch too.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 9:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 150 of 301 (703168)
07-16-2013 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
07-16-2013 10:45 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Yeah the order of the fossil record appears to be consistent, but that's not testability. You need something outside the fossil record that validates your interpretation.

Radiometric dating and fossil seriation do just fine.

Both, however, say the flood story is complete nonsense.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 10:45 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 196 of 301 (703234)
07-16-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
07-16-2013 9:36 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
There is just no convincing you how wrong you are.

You are perhaps the classic example of "Belief gets in the way of learning." You have a mind like a steel trap: rusted shut.

(That's nothing to be proud of by the way.)


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 9:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 237 of 301 (703307)
07-17-2013 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
07-17-2013 10:52 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
They are formed from a split off a larger population. The smaller population cannot possibly have more genetic material than the larger. It takes the reduction or loss of alleles for the former characteristics for the allleles for the new characteristics to increase, and often the former disappear from the population altogether if the population is appreciably smaller than the original.

This is absolutely wrong.

If every population has a range of variation (for the sake of a round number we'll call that 10%), then when speciation occurs, the two subpopulations--species--each contains both the differences one from the other and the 10% range of variation.

Multiply this by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of species, all having descended from a common ancestor and each carrying distinct differences one from the other, plus that 10% range of variation within each species.

It is completely irrational to claim that the resulting genetic variation is less than that contained in the original common ancestor.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 10:52 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 © 2019