Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 6:12 PM
110 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 107 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,531 Year: 3,568/19,786 Month: 563/1,087 Week: 153/212 Day: 20/49 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 106 of 142 (502725)
03-12-2009 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Sarawak
03-12-2009 5:17 PM


Re: Theoretical Answer
A scientist (atheist or a theist who accepts science, and yes, this does imply that Creationists are not only anti-Evolution, but anti-science, in general) accepts only the statement, "show me and prove it through the scientific method". These worlds cannot be reconciled.

Incorrect on most points. "Scientists" are human and subject to influence and bias, upbringing, social pressures, and money. The words "I believe" are a very normal part of a Scientists language.
No different from anybody else. Men, women, gay, straight, bald, fat, skinny, nice, rude.....basically the same cross section you find in any building, anywhere.

And every Creationist will ask you to PLEASE "show me and prove it through the scientific method". But we are talking ancient history...not even remotely connected with any verifiable experiments. Except for "Natural Selection". That part works to keep a species alive and intact in an imperfect world.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Sarawak, posted 03-12-2009 5:17 PM Sarawak has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-12-2009 11:58 PM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 118 by Sarawak, posted 03-13-2009 11:45 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 107 of 142 (502726)
03-12-2009 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Sarawak
03-12-2009 5:17 PM


Re: Theoretical Answer
The solution is to take, say Mississippi and Louisiana (so a lot won't have to move), toss all the Creationists in there. Call it Creoland. But, make sure they get none of the benefits from science, i.e. let them wallow in what the say they want. And let them take the consequences of their belief. The USA can be the rest of the country. Borders will remain open for immigration both ways, but no Creationist evangelism will be allowed in the USA and no teaching or bringing the benefits of science will be allowed in Creoland.

How are the 48% of the US population who reject Darwinian Evolution going to fit?


- Sky-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Sarawak, posted 03-12-2009 5:17 PM Sarawak has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 925 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 108 of 142 (502727)
03-12-2009 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 11:46 PM


Re: Theoretical Answer
And every Creationist will ask you to PLEASE "show me and prove it through the scientific method". But we are talking ancient history...not even remotely connected with any verifiable experiments.

Maybe you'd like to point out where the conspiracy is hiding here.
Not much deception is possible counting tree rings, or annual varve deposits, or annual ice layers.
Those methods take us back in time 650,000 years.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 11:46 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-13-2009 3:16 AM shalamabobbi has responded

    
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 109 of 142 (502734)
03-13-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by shalamabobbi
03-12-2009 11:58 PM


Re: Theoretical Answer
Maybe you'd like to point out where the conspiracy is hiding here.
Not much deception is possible

counting tree rings,
or annual varve deposits,
or annual ice layers.

Those methods take us back in time 650,000 years.

I don't know how we are going to verify those dates.

Did one of the first 10 tree rings include a young lovers carved heart and a date?

Are we absolutely sure that 20 alternating layers of course and fine silt can't be built up in a 60 minute time period? I'd be happy to show you that it can be done. I've done it myself, as a boy, in a sand box, with a hose. You've never done that? OK, maybe it took me 8 hours for 20 layers, until the sun went down and mom called me in anyway.

Did the lowest level of snow have a dated coin? Did this dated coin have a weather chart on it verifying that the planet had the same weather patterns that only changed once per year like they do today?

1.
I'm not going to argue with 700,000 years. Whatever Pope or Cardinal came up with an age of 10,000 years may have had a small boy on his lap at the time and been distracted. It happened in front of my dad as he worked on the Cardinals roof in Chicago in the 70's, it may have happened before that.

2.
If I had a glass of wine that had just been handed to me by that "Man from Galilee", assuming I was a wine expert, I'd likely agree with the wine critic who was there and said it was the finest vintage he'd ever tasted. Let's say that he was "a scientist" rather than somebody Jesus hypnotized into saying that. That means it would taste like actual wine rather than water. Scientifically speaking, aged juice from grapes. The Creator of the wine meant no deception. He intended the wine to be fully functional, so it was.

3.
Do I believe the weather was the same 5000 years ago as it is today? No.
And yes, that's just a belief.
Others insist/believe it was just like it is today.
I've pointed out that the conspiracy is spiritual in nature. If a person is looking to disprove something, they will seek out evidence to support their decision and ignore, or even be blind to evidence to the contrary.

Why do real scientists have disagreement about Global Warming? Don't we have ACTUAL data? Sure we do. Yet controversy exists, for whatever reasons.

If the world seems older than it is, it's not because God intended deception. It's because the earth needed to have a solid surface to stand on and rock to build on. Mud or plain water was just not suitable for what all He had in mind.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-12-2009 11:58 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by anglagard, posted 03-13-2009 3:39 AM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 111 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-13-2009 4:00 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Vacate, posted 03-13-2009 4:46 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 110 of 142 (502737)
03-13-2009 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Sky-Writing
03-13-2009 3:16 AM


The Properly Humble Answer
-sky- writes:

If the world seems older than it is, it's not because God intended deception. It's because the earth needed to have a solid surface to stand on and rock to build on. Mud or plain water was just not suitable for what all He had in mind.

It's called natural science, as in physics, chemistry, geology, biology and all subsets. Don't knock it until you have tried it, or indeed even learned about it. Consider that God wrote the rocks and man wrote the books or one of mine "I believe in the works of God and not the words of men." For further elaboration see my signature.

Now we all know you do not want to be a Right Wing Authoritarian that filters all information through unquestioned and preconceived notions as that would make you a slave of the brain as hardwired rather than softwired.

All I ask is you read both sides and make an informed decision. like many here, I have.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic post hidden


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-13-2009 3:16 AM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-13-2009 6:19 AM anglagard has responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 925 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 111 of 142 (502738)
03-13-2009 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Sky-Writing
03-13-2009 3:16 AM


Re: Theoretical Answer
Scientifically speaking, aged juice from grapes.

Well if last Thursdayism is your argument, admit it, make yourself comfortable with it, and I'll wish you well.

Those varve deposits, however you account for them, add up to more than the time alloted by the 6,000 year old earth model. Also the alternate layers in the lake Suigetsu varves in Japan contain pollen grains.

quote:
In the Green River Formation, GRF, there are over 6 million varves. Lets assume there was more rain at the GRF location. Let's assume it rains 40 times a year at the GRF location. This would give you forty couplet layers. At an accumulation rate of 40 couplets per year, it would take 75,000 years to deposit all the varves. This is much longer than the 6,000 to 10,000 years that young earth creationists claim as the age of the earth. In order to get down to the 10,000 year range, you would need 300 storm events per year for the last 10,000 years. At this rate, the storms would be so constant that you would not get the finely layered couplets that we see in the rocks, nor is it realistic to say that it rained that much in that location over the last 10,000 years. (Lower it to 6,000 years, which most young earth creationists claim as the age of the earth, and you have 500 storms per year!)

ref
http://www.answersincreation.org/varves.htm

I think even with your allowances you are a bit short on time..
Also there is ample evidence that the layers are annual.

quote:
Take a closer look at those bedding planes. On many of them you will find tracks, trails, burrows, and borings. In other words, extensive evidence for bioturbation. These prove that, for some minimum amount of time, each bedding plane remained exposed at the sediment-water interface, with organisms burrowing through the sediment, crawling across its surface, and so forth. The borings are particularly important becase they clearly indicate that the sedimentary substrate was hardened after deposition but before the boring. On other bedding planes, you might find successive layers of mudcracks, or sandstone foresets with raindrop impressions. On other bedding planes ('hardgrounds'), you will find a whole ensemble of organisms preserved *in situ.* In these cases, it can be said confidently that one layer was deposited, sedimentation stopped, the sea-floor hardened, and was then colonized by organisms which bored into the surface and *then* grew to adult size. This clearly refutes Brown's proposed scenario.

ref
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/pflood.htm

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-13-2009 3:16 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 112 of 142 (502740)
03-13-2009 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Sky-Writing
03-13-2009 3:16 AM


Explanations for incredible claims
If a person is looking to disprove something, they will seek out evidence to support their decision and ignore, or even be blind to evidence to the contrary.

Great point, I could not agree more.


Do I believe the weather was the same 5000 years ago as it is today? No.
And yes, that's just a belief.

Why not convert that belief into something a bit more substantial? Over at Razd's thread Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) would be a more appropriate place to explain how you support your belief.

I am quite curious how you can explain away just how different our weather needed to be 5000 years ago to give the appearance of age in all the data that Razd has provided. 650,000 layers of ice that formed in a short period of time (1 year??) but conveniently happen to look like layers of present day that each take a year to form. Needless to say this is quite an incredible claim, this isn't just different weather... its beyond belief.

I wonder how different things had to be exactly, and how incredible that so many different factors manage to correlate with present days varied dating methods. Do you just believe with no thought about it or can you actually back up your beliefs with some sort of explanation that settles such a massively complex and unlikely claim such as yours?

You expressed some scorn at my having labeled you a "Last-Thursdayist" in another thread, in all seriousness it is the only explanation I can see for your attitude on historical investigation. That or God is a trickster and screwed everything up just right.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-13-2009 3:16 AM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-13-2009 6:34 AM Vacate has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 113 of 142 (502743)
03-13-2009 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by anglagard
03-13-2009 3:39 AM


Re: The Properly Humble Answer
It's called natural science, as in physics, chemistry, geology, biology and all subsets. Don't knock it until you have tried it, or indeed even learned about it. Consider that God wrote the rocks and man wrote the books or one of mine "I believe in the works of God and not the words of men." For further elaboration see my signature.

Now we all know ....Right Wing Authoritarian...unquestioned and preconceived notions...slave of the brain....hardwired...read both sides...informed decision...like...I have. (Edited down to the meaty parts)

I've work for 2 decades in the hard Sciences in Research & Development for Standard Oil in Naperville in Polymer development, Adhesive development, and a couple other oil related product fields. I'm currently at a Polymer producing company outside of Chicago. My uncle, a Chemist, brought up the subject of Special Creation a number of years ago. He's now retired with a nice pension from Abbott Laboratories where he developed the drugs we all take. A quiet man who chuckles about the world God has created.

I never understood how something could come from nothing, and I finally found a more scientific model that proposes that rather than intelligence forming out of nothing, we were formed out of an intelligence.

Scientifically, it fits with reality much better. And all that I've learned in my years in the Lab. But thanks for the kind invitation to your hellish nightmare though.

Edited by -Sky-, : Trimming to the meat

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden


- Sky-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by anglagard, posted 03-13-2009 3:39 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by anglagard, posted 03-13-2009 6:50 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 116 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 9:01 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 114 of 142 (502744)
03-13-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Vacate
03-13-2009 4:46 AM


Re: Explanations for incredible claims
Like I said, I'm not going to argue about a 700,000 YO earth.
That's fine with me. I'm not concerned about what Exact year God
Created our existence.

Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Vacate, posted 03-13-2009 4:46 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Vacate, posted 03-13-2009 9:56 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 115 of 142 (502746)
03-13-2009 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Sky-Writing
03-13-2009 6:19 AM


Re: The Properly Humble Answer
-sky- writes:

I've work for 2 decades in the hard Sciences in Research & Development for Standard Oil in Naperville in Polymer development, Adhesive development, and a couple other oil related product fields. I'm currently at a Polymer producing company outside of Chicago. My uncle, a Chemist, brought up the subject of Special Creation a number of years ago. He's now retired with a nice pension from Abbott Laboratories where he developed the drugs we all take. A quiet man who chuckles about the world God has created.

The properly humble answer indeed. Is your position in these matters superior to all others due to your resume?

Me, I'm just a college dean with some knowledge of science who is always eager to learn more, hence my participation.

I never understood how something could come from nothing, and I finally found a more scientific model that proposes that rather than intelligence forming out of nothing, we were formed out of an intelligence.

That perception is OK with me as long as it does not interfere with the obvious facts observed and well explained by natural science. I don't think anyone really wants to bring back the plague just because they prefer ridin' that triceratops to curing Parkinson's.

Scientifically, it fits with reality much better. And all that I've learned in my years in the Lab. But thanks for the kind invitation to your hellish nightmare though.

Obviously your years {or any others you invoke} in the lab did not include the genetic cure for Parkinson's which would have been readily available if Bush had not suppressed science, which you also apparently agree with.

Yesterday my mother was buried in the military cemetery in Santa Fe. She died of Parkinson's.

Happy now asshole.

Edited by anglagard, : {}

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-13-2009 6:19 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 116 of 142 (502769)
03-13-2009 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Sky-Writing
03-13-2009 6:19 AM


Silly Questions Abound
I've work for 2 decades in the hard Sciences in Research & Development for Standard Oil in Naperville in Polymer development, Adhesive development, and a couple other oil related product fields.

Since were giving our bona fides Ill give mine. 3 years ago I dissected some earth worms. This year I dissected a frog. I have a subscription to NewScientist and 4 Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope, but Im not allowed to go outside after 2100 hrs. because my mum says thats when Satin works. I've never had a job that didn't turn my shoes green. Yet it would never occur to me to ask:

How do we find Oil? Just what IS oil, by the way? How did so much organic matter build up in one place anyway? Millions of tiny thin layers of leaves over millions of years? When we dig in the bottom of lakes or oceans we don't find much buildup. It gets eaten and digested.
when oil isnt composed of leaves, thats coal. Oil is the decomposition product of organics such as kerogen from zooplankton and alga under anoxic conditions, heat and pressure. Google, dude.

So, here I sit, all young and impressionable, and stuff. And here's this guy who claims to be in the know of science because he's worked in the oil industry for longer then I've been alive, but doesn't know that oil doesn't come from leaves.

I'm not tempted to let you do to me what your uncle did to you.


My heart goes out to you, anglagard. I will cry for her.

Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-13-2009 6:19 AM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-13-2009 1:02 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 117 of 142 (502781)
03-13-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Sky-Writing
03-13-2009 6:34 AM


Re: Explanations for incredible claims
Like I said, I'm not going to argue about a 700,000 YO earth.
That's fine with me. I'm not concerned about what Exact year God
Created our existence.

What an interesting position to take! I had asked: Do you just believe with no thought about it and the indirect answer is yes. Then you casually insert your declaration that God created existence; as if, with no thought necessary you get to trumpet a victory.

Twenty years experience in science but you have little trouble dismissing entire fields of science as if populated by a pack of lunatics. (Invitations to hellish nightmares?) Is this how you spent your twenty years of R&D for Standard Oil; dismissing opposing viewpoints with a casual wave of the hand? I bet not.

Perhaps you should look into the fields with an open mind and actually try to "be concerned" with the science before dismissing it. I would expect that to be the proper way of learning something. A hose in a sandbox is a pretty shoddy way of conducting an experiment and if it actually produced results anything compared to annual varve deposits perhaps a geologist would have noticed by now?

If a person is looking to disprove something, they will seek out evidence to support their decision and ignore, or even be blind to evidence to the contrary.

Wise words, and thus far an excellent demonstration.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-13-2009 6:34 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 3553 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 118 of 142 (502797)
03-13-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 11:46 PM


Re: Theoretical Answer
Proof:

Yes individual scientists are a cross section of humanity (excepting Luddites), but the field of Science does not allow personal opinion into its theories. Science quickly expunges incorrect information from its databases.

I say this as a scientist, Ph.D., microbial genetics and biochemistry, and 40 years of practice thereof. You have no idea what science is.

Sorry.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 11:46 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-13-2009 1:16 PM Sarawak has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 119 of 142 (502807)
03-13-2009 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by lyx2no
03-13-2009 9:01 AM


Re: Silly Questions Abound
when oil isn�t composed of leaves, that�s coal. Oil is the decomposition product of organics such as kerogen from zooplankton and alga under anoxic conditions, heat and pressure. Google, dude.

I accept a Google challenge. Maybe you should have done it first.
I only found one answer that doesn't specifically mention plants.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Where+does+crude+oil+come+from%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.google:en-US

By the way, experiments with organic matter take about 90 days to create crude oil like results. No pressure.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 9:01 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Theodoric, posted 03-13-2009 1:34 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Coragyps, posted 03-13-2009 1:53 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 03-13-2009 1:59 PM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 120 of 142 (502810)
03-13-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Sarawak
03-13-2009 11:45 AM


Re: Theoretical Answer
I say this as a scientist, Ph.D., microbial genetics and biochemistry, and 40 years of practice thereof. You have no idea what science is.

Then you know better than anyone here that Darwin added nothing to the bio sciences. Any pesant who breed dogs was already fully aware of the inherent diversity of DNA and how the selection process works over 1000 years before Darwin wore his first diaper.

I have little exposure to how science works outside of R&D labs. That's true.
I can only account for what I've seen happen in the trenches.

Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Sarawak, posted 03-13-2009 11:45 AM Sarawak has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2009 1:33 PM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 125 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 2:11 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019