Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 8:50 AM
28 online now:
edge, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Stile, Tangle (6 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,003 Year: 9,039/19,786 Month: 1,461/2,119 Week: 221/576 Day: 24/98 Hour: 8/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 301 (443055)
12-23-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by dwise1
11-12-2007 10:24 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
dwise1 writes:

Evolution, not evolutionism! Why did you just pull a bait-and-switch there? We were talking about evolution, but you switched it to a creationist invention, a manufactured scapegoat. A lie, a deception.

Evolutionism is in the dictionaries and all over the www. It's definition is the same as that of evolution for all practical purposes.

Definition of evolutionism according to the free online dictionary:

ev·o·lu·tion·ism (v-lsh-nzm, v-)
n.
1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolutionism

Evolutionists do their best to disclaim the ligitimate term of the English language so as to have the edge on the creationism vs evolutionism debate. Evolutionist scientists tend to avoid the term for that reason. The word belief is another ligitimate word which evolutionists purposefully avoid for the same reason.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 10:24 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 4:58 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 301 (443083)
12-23-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dr Adequate
12-23-2007 4:58 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
DA writes:

You will notice that neither of those definitions is synonymous with "evolution", as you can easily see by substituting either such definition into sentences containing the word "evolution".

For all practical purposes, why not? You're being nitty picky for the sake of argument. If Dwise's contention was valid journalists should have the same problem with the term journalism. What's the difference?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 4:58 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 6:11 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 301 (443147)
12-23-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Dr Adequate
12-23-2007 6:11 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
Oh, so this is becoming a lesson on gramatical correctness. Like I said, you're being nitty picky. Well then forget it. Discerning folks know my point relative to topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by dwise1, posted 12-23-2007 11:38 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 301 (443296)
12-24-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by dwise1
12-23-2007 11:38 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
dwise1 writes:

Not grammatical correctness -- grammar being the structure of a language -- , but rather semantic correctness -- semantics dealing with meaning. Each of those sentences are grammatically correct, but half of them are semanticly wrong and don't make any sense.
Evolutionism is not the same thing as evolution. To try to claim that they are the same thing is both false and misleading.

By the same token we can argue that it is semantics that evolutionists use to avoid the gramatically proper term/word evolutionism in reference to evolution. This is nothing but spin on the term so as to avoid it's usage in order that the evolutionists may gain the higer ground in debate on the controversial issue.

The fact remains that evolutionism is every bit as relative to evolution as creationism is to creation and journalism is to what journalists do, autism is to the autistic etc.

Speaking for myself so long as I'm gramatically correct relative to the usage of it I'll not be denied the right to apply the word/term in reference to evolution. It's time creationists hold their rightful ground on ligitimate issuse such as this. As for the semantic arguments, both camps can argue til the cows come home on them so the generic non-partisan definition of the word becomes the bottom line which we must go by if this issue is ever to be resolved.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by dwise1, posted 12-23-2007 11:38 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 12-24-2007 12:34 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 301 (443382)
12-24-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
12-24-2007 12:34 PM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
Percy, the Wikipedia bias against creationism and conservatism is well established. Therefore I choose to go with the online dictionary, American Heritage and other neutral fair and balanced sources in defining terms. I have documented my POV in this debate well from more reliable sources than Wikipedia.

The debate is on regarding this. Why should my POV be restricted to biased sources for documentation?

Yes, this debate is raises controversial issues. However, I see no problem with civility on either side of the debate so far. If there comes a civility problem which concerns you it won't be on my count. I believe that is the duty of moderators to deal with any civility problem which should arise. Thus your referral to the Forum Guidelines relative to my alleged violation of it has no basis.

Wikipedia has a systemic problem due to the bias of the moderators as to which user contributions to allow and disallow as can be seen by the link below and this is just one of many websites which are critical of Wikipedia's bias:

Many of the CreationWiki authors have expressed frustration with Wikipedia. It is said that while Wikipedia claims to take a "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) position on topics and seems to follow it quite well for most issues, when it comes to creation science and intelligent design, it has a strong negative point of view. Sometimes this bias simply results from contributors who do not like or in some cases show a clear hatred for Creationism, but sadly this sentiment extends to the sysops as well. One example is the fact that they classify Creation science and Intelligent design as pseudosciences which is a standard anti-creation tactic.

Wikipedia Main Page
About Wikipedia
An example of the systemic bias in Wikipedia was the vote to delete the article "Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared". Despite Wikipedia's NPOV policy, many voters felt free to vote to delete the article on the grounds that they considered creationism as pseudoscience or worse, rather than on the merits of the article itself. Some of the comments in support of the vote to delete were:

The title of the page is inherently wrong, as it suggests that creationism is a scientific view.
...comparing religious doctrine to scientific theory is comparing apples and oranges, and thus non-encyclopedic.
By opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science", the article title suggests that creationism is a scientific POV.
Creationism is not science.
Delete, since creationism is ultimately based on untestable religious beliefs...
Not only did these voters feel free to vote on the basis of their bias, no administrators felt the need to remind the voters that they should be voting on the merits of the article, not their personal opinion of creationism.

Furthermore, the contributor who proposed that the article be deleted—after he had vandalised the creationist views listed there—considered the Talk.Origins Archive to be "the most balanced treatment on the web to date"


http://creationwiki.org/Wikipedia


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 12-24-2007 12:34 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 12-24-2007 9:25 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 217 by obvious Child, posted 12-25-2007 3:13 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 218 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-25-2007 3:53 AM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 301 (443422)
12-24-2007 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Percy
12-24-2007 9:25 PM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
Percy writes:

The topic of this thread is the evidence supporting Creationism.

Dwise made a fuss about the meaning of evolutionism and I countered with the creationist POV and off we all went on it. I agree we need to get back on track. In the mean time terminology issue remains unresolved and the debate goes way beyond this site.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 12-24-2007 9:25 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by CK, posted 12-24-2007 10:41 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 301 (443472)
12-25-2007 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Archer Opteryx
12-25-2007 3:53 AM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
A substantive greeting here. Nothing else substantive. Thanks! Christmas greetings to you and yours as well.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-25-2007 3:53 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 301 (443473)
12-25-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by obvious Child
12-25-2007 3:13 AM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
Nothing substantive here at all.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by obvious Child, posted 12-25-2007 3:13 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 12:53 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 301 (443476)
12-25-2007 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by CK
12-24-2007 10:41 PM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
Zero substance here also. :rolleyes:

Edited by Buzsaw, : fix smiles


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by CK, posted 12-24-2007 10:41 PM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by jar, posted 12-25-2007 9:57 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 11:03 AM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 301 (443480)
12-25-2007 10:05 AM


Human Population Factor
Regarding substantive evidence for creationism, I haven't read the whole thread, but has the human population factor been discussed?

Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by bluescat48, posted 12-25-2007 12:30 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 1:13 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2007 9:05 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 301 (443500)
12-25-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Percy
12-25-2007 11:03 AM


Re: A plea for substantive, constructive, on-topic discussion
As a matter of fact I was making a concerted effort to get to topic, thinking the human population factor was evidence in support of creationism. Oh well, what the heck, you're the boss.

Replying here as Admin to save post bandwidth since this thread is rapidly approaching 300 posts, if you look at the message you're replying to you'll see the answer. It's a reply to your Message 222, not your Message 224 about populations. You hadn't posted Message 224 when I started composing my Message 225, which was interrupted by breakfast. --Percy replying as Admin

Edited by Admin, : Add info about populations being on-topic.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 11:03 AM Percy has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 301 (443589)
12-25-2007 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Percy
12-25-2007 1:13 PM


Re: Human Population Factor
Hi Percy.

1. I believe you are either misreading item 4 of the link or misapplying the math. As I read item 4 it is not saying 1% with i.e. factoring in the 1/3 wiped out. It's saying after you make the estimate of 1% growth then you apply the 1/3rd being wiped out.
2. The math gets more complicated in that you need to factor in evey 82 years the 1/3 of the 1% average being wiped out rather than a one step wiping out at the end of the period. In so doing the offspring is being diminished at a faster rate. So 82 years after the flood 1/3 of the population on average would factor out as being wiped out without offspring and so on every 82 years all the way down the line to the present.

ITEM 4:

It estimates the annual growth rate at 1% with approximately 1/3 of the population wiped out every 82 years (these figures are extremely questionable, but I'm just going to apply the math). Plugging in the numbers and starting with 8 individuals 4500 years ago (2500 BC) yields a world population today of 49 billion. Would you say that's just a little off, since the estimate of the world population in 2005 was 6.454 billion?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 1:13 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 9:03 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 301 (443669)
12-26-2007 11:22 AM


Driving My Population Argument Home
To drive my population argument home I've calculated the population growth of .005 or 1/2 of 1% for just 20500 years beginning with 2 people. Here is the results:

2 people at 1/2 of 1% in 20500 years = 50,481,231,644,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people

http://metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php

At this ultra conservative rate the population growth factor appears to be a significant argument for evidence which supports creationism as per the topic title, given the evolutionist model calls for humanity existing on earth for scores of thousands of years.

How do evolutionists account for the lack of evdence accounting for the population growth problem here?

Edited by Buzsaw, : link for calculator


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2007 11:58 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 240 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 12:11 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 241 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 12:15 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 243 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 1:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 301 (443702)
12-26-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 11:22 AM


Re: Driving My Population Argument Home
What I'm trying to do is to simplify the solution to this debate since there's so much controversy over the reading of the original website and so few messages to move on from this.

I'll give plenty of leeway to make it more than fair with the advantage to evolutionists.

Calculate beginning with 2 persons 40000 years ago today. That allows 60000 years of advancement in the human race before we begin the calculation as per the evolutionist model. Now again for your advantage let's set the average growth rate at .1% factoring in everything. After 40000 years the population should still be:
Population in 40000 yrs (present) = 46,099,380,681,100,000

And that's even allowing the advantage to evolution of a hypothetical starting point beginning 40000 years ago with two people!

Population in 40000 = 46,099,380,681,100,000

Calculator: http://metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php

Edited by Buzsaw, : add calculator link

Edited by Buzsaw, : correct typo on percentage.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 11:22 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by CK, posted 12-26-2007 1:47 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 245 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2007 2:00 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 2:21 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 269 by Modulous, posted 12-26-2007 7:40 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 301 (443724)
12-26-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by CK
12-26-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Evidence of creationist ability to misuse/mis-represent numbers but that's it.
DA writes:

I also like how you think you are doing a favour by setting average growth at 0.1% when it already know that the growth rate from 1CE to 1000CE was around 0.04%!

But we're not talking ICE to CE. We're talking 40000 to present. That's what you need to address. Thanks for correcting my typo to 0.1%


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by CK, posted 12-26-2007 1:47 PM CK has not yet responded

1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019