Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
68 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 47/27 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On creationists' beliefs
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 59 (4171)
02-11-2002 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peter
02-11-2002 7:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Which aspects of evolution do you find implausible ?

All of evolutionary theory, just parts of it ?

What aspects of evolutionary theory lack supporting evidence, in your
opinion ?


PLEASE do not turn this debate into one of these topics. These topics should be discussed in other forums.

My main arguments against evolution are:

1. Abiogenesis
2. Mutation-Selection
3. Puncuated Equilibrium

These are the sections of the theory in which I find the most unconvincing for evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 7:55 AM Peter has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by joz, posted 02-11-2002 10:20 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action
 Message 33 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 2:23 AM Cobra_snake has taken no action

joz
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 59 (4172)
02-11-2002 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 9:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
PLEASE do not turn this debate into one of these topics. These topics should be discussed in other forums.

My main arguments against evolution are:

1. Abiogenesis
2. Mutation-Selection
3. Puncuated Equilibrium

These are the sections of the theory in which I find the most unconvincing for evolution.


Just for reference could you please write a brief synopsis of what these terms mean to you, how they are supposed to work and how you find that explanation unconvincing....

This should result in a more focused debate....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 9:59 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

nator
Member (Idle past 1409 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 59 (4175)
02-11-2002 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by KingPenguin
02-08-2002 4:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
[b] i could make the same generalizations about any evolutionists but i wont because i know its not fair to discriminate people like that. Even if the slim chance that evolution is true it doesnt disprove anything, its a just a way of explain how things happened.[/QUOTE]

Except that the ToE is a scientific theory supported by evidence. Lots of it.

Have you studied Biology above the high school level, BTW? Do you even know the basics of Evolutionary theory? Why don't you briefly explain what you know about evolution? Surely you must have a rather complete, competant grasp of the theory and the evidence supporting it for you to make claims about it's veracity.


The bible doesnt specify things and it might have been dumbed down to make it easier to understand and believe, imagine back then the earth being a sphere probably was never considered and even if you thought that you were probably frowned upon or maybe even killed.[/QUOTE]

What does the Earth being a sphere have to do with the ToE?

quote:
Even with all of that the universe didnt just appear

Do you know this or believe this? If you believe this, then it's something you take on faith. If it's something you think you know, then let's see the evidence.

Also, what does this have to do with the ToE?

quote:
and the big bang theory has yet to become fact.

What does the Big Bang have to do with the ToE? The origin of the Universe has nothing to do with the ToE. Please do not conflate all the scientific theories you object to on religious grounds into one mess.

quote:
A fact that helps proves creation is that we count down to and from the year of christ's birth, i highly doubt that people would just start counting from there and have it become worldwide without enough evidence to convince everyone that God does exist.

Wow, did you even think about that before you wrote it??

It is hardly a "worldwide" practice to use Christ's birth as a reference point in a calender.

Neither the Chinese, the Muslims nor the Jews keep the same calender that we do, for example. Our calender is called the Gregorian calender because it's named after the Pope who instituted it. Since the Catholic church was a huge political and religious power in the West at that time, they got to choose where we started our calender.

Neither does using Christ's birth as a reference point in a calender have anything to do with proving God's existence.

[QUOTE]if you actually had enough evidence to prove evolution and disprove creation, like so many of you claim, then surely we would be in the year whatever starting from mans first existence according to evolution.
[/b][/QUOTE]

Why the heck would a scientific Theory influence the choice of calender? That is truly a strange illogical conclusion.

Actually, we use B.C.E (Before the Common Era), and C.E.(the Common Era) now, at least in better educated and academic circles. We are moving away from the constant reference to Christ as a calender reference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by KingPenguin, posted 02-08-2002 4:47 PM KingPenguin has taken no action

Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 59 (4177)
02-11-2002 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by toff
02-11-2002 9:39 AM


"Thank you. You answered my question. You subscribe to belief number
1. You, and others like you, the majority of whom hold no scientific qualifications, know more about the subject than those who have studied it for decades. I appreciate your honesty (although you tried to make your position sound a little better by hedging and trying to make it sounds more reasonable)."

Well I would be really interested if you could show me that the MAJORITY of Creation Scientists hold no credentials.

"Oh, and a couple of other quick points - I neither said nor implied that "Creation Scientists have no credentials". I said that of creationists, most have no scientific knowledge or training. This is simply true, of creationists and indeed the general populace. Nice try, though."

So, a group should be defined by its stupidest member? Well, then both evolution and creation fall flat on their faces. Creation scientists are the important subject at hand. Pointing out that there are quite a few ignorant people out there that follow the Creation model does nothing to disprove the validity of the Creation model.

"And do you seriously believe that there are evolutionists who believe evolution is not plausible? Are you serious? If they don't believe it's plausible, then they're not evolutionists, are they?"

Actually, that is not what I said. The thing is, many evolutionists are unsure of THEIR area of study, but they listen to the proffesionals from the OTHER areas of study. All the while the members from the OTHER area of study are unsure of their position, so they rely on the information from the FORMER area of study. This is one of the main problems with the creation and evolution models- they are much too broad. Therefore, evidence that is crushing to one area of study can be viewed as a minor mystery that is to be solved later. However, it would not be as difficult to disprove the Atomic Theory, if indeed it were false. This is because the Atomic Theory is not too broad.

"Oh, and I wouldn't try to make your position sound better by citing that "many intelligent Creation scientists" hold it as well. I have yet to see a creation 'scientist' who has any (a) integrity or (b) an accurate picture of science in general or evolution in particular."

Well thanks for your opinion allmighty toff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 9:39 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by joz, posted 02-11-2002 10:43 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action
 Message 34 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 2:30 AM Cobra_snake has taken no action

joz
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 59 (4179)
02-11-2002 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 10:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
1)PLEASE do not turn this debate into one of these topics. These topics should be discussed in other forums.
My main arguments against evolution are:

1. Abiogenesis
2. Mutation-Selection
3. Puncuated Equilibrium

These are the sections of the theory in which I find the most unconvincing for evolution.

2)It would not be as difficult to disprove the Atomic Theory, if indeed it were false. This is because the Atomic Theory is not too broad.


1)(just in case this got buried out of sight):

Just for reference could you please write a brief synopsis of what these terms mean to you, how they are supposed to work and how you find that explanation unconvincing....

This should result in a more focused debate....

2)Atomic theory not broad? How so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 10:33 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 59 (4180)
02-11-2002 10:44 PM


"Actually the consensus is overwhelming. If I walked over to the bio department and asked who questioned evolution I'd be laughed at. Because some people are loud doesn't mean they are serious individuals."

Yes, of course the census is overwhelming. My point is that there is much debate within the theory, and many are waiting, hoping for a new more realistic mechanism for some of the phenomenon.

"That is an assertion in desperate need of evidence."

I will give you some examples tommorrow.


The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 5478 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 59 (4182)
02-11-2002 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by lbhandli
02-11-2002 11:35 AM


My particular favorite is Hovind who claims to have a PhD from a ranch style house.

That's a shameless lie. The house is a split level! How dare you misrepresent Hovind's alma mater?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by lbhandli, posted 02-11-2002 11:35 AM lbhandli has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by The Barbarian, posted 02-11-2002 11:04 PM The Barbarian has taken no action

The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 5478 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 59 (4183)
02-11-2002 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by The Barbarian
02-11-2002 10:59 PM


1)PLEASE do not turn this debate into one of these topics. These topics should be discussed in other forums.
My main arguments against evolution are:
1. Abiogenesis

Then your argument is doomed, because abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. You might as well try to bring it down by arguing against quantum theory.

2. Mutation-Selection

Not much hope there, either. We can directly observe that process. Would you like some examples?

3. Puncuated Equilibrium

That might be interesting. What do you find objectionable about Punk-Eek?

These are the sections of the theory in which I find the most unconvincing for evolution.

You seem to be talking about the Cartoon Theory of Evolution, as opposed to the real one. The Cartoon Theory, so beloved by creationists, is certainly wrong. But the real one is certainly right. Would you like to learn about the real one?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by The Barbarian, posted 02-11-2002 10:59 PM The Barbarian has taken no action

toff
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 59 (4193)
02-12-2002 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by TrueCreation
02-11-2002 6:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Sadly, I note that neither TrueCreation nor KingPenguin, the most prolific posters on this an some other boards, have bothered to even try to answer my question. One simply dodged around it, while the other (incorrectly) accused me of making a generalisation. Read it again, KingPenguin. I'm asking a QUESTION, begging to be corrected if I have the wrong end of the stick. So how about you actually try responding to my original post, instead of just using it as a launching pad for your own statements?"
--I already responded to your original post, and as I can see from the only two, one or the other conjector, that it doesn't seem worth getting into as someone seems to have already made up their mind before starting. Unless you woul like to restate the question.

From this and other threads, it appears you aer fond of asking people to restate the question, perhaps when to answer the question would prove damaging for your case. Sorry. The question stands as asked. You have not answered it, nor, I suspect, will you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 6:40 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

toff
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 59 (4194)
02-12-2002 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 9:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
PLEASE do not turn this debate into one of these topics. These topics should be discussed in other forums.

My main arguments against evolution are:

1. Abiogenesis
2. Mutation-Selection
3. Puncuated Equilibrium

These are the sections of the theory in which I find the most unconvincing for evolution.


Ummm....sorry, Cobra Snake. Abiogenesis is not any part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory deals with how organisms change, not how they come into being. 'Mutation-Selection' is sufficiently general that I have no idea what it means, and Punctuated Equilibrium is a relatively new theory that is by no means accepted by all evolutionary theorists. If this represents the sum of your difficulties with evolutionary theory, I expect you to give up creationism any day now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 9:59 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

toff
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 59 (4195)
02-12-2002 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 10:33 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]"Thank you. You answered my question. You subscribe to belief number
1. You, and others like you, the majority of whom hold no scientific qualifications, know more about the subject than those who have studied it for decades. I appreciate your honesty (although you tried to make your position sound a little better by hedging and trying to make it sounds more reasonable)."

Well I would be really interested if you could show me that the MAJORITY of Creation Scientists hold no credentials.
[/QUOTE]

[/b]
Nice straw man, but I never said that the majority of Creation Scientists hold no credentials. I said the majority of creationists don't. Which is surely true.
"Oh, and a couple of other quick points - I neither said nor implied that "Creation Scientists have no credentials". I said that of creationists, most have no scientific knowledge or training. This is simply true, of creationists and indeed the general populace. Nice try, though."

[QUOTE][b]
So, a group should be defined by its stupidest member? Well, then both evolution and creation fall flat on their faces. Creation scientists are the important subject at hand. Pointing out that there are quite a few ignorant people out there that follow the Creation model does nothing to disprove the validity of the Creation model.
[/QUOTE]

[/b]
Who said anything about defining a group? I made a simple point; that the majority of creationists have no scientific knowledge, qualifications or training. That, surely, is simply obvious fact.

[QUOTE][b]
"And do you seriously believe that there are evolutionists who believe evolution is not plausible? Are you serious? If they don't believe it's plausible, then they're not evolutionists, are they?"

Actually, that is not what I said. The thing is, many evolutionists are unsure of THEIR area of study, but they listen to the proffesionals from the OTHER areas of study. All the while the members from the OTHER area of study are unsure of their position, so they rely on the information from the FORMER area of study. This is one of the main problems with the creation and evolution models- they are much too broad. Therefore, evidence that is crushing to one area of study can be viewed as a minor mystery that is to be solved later. However, it would not be as difficult to disprove the Atomic Theory, if indeed it were false. This is because the Atomic Theory is not too broad.
[/QUOTE]

[/b]

Actually, it's EXACTLY what you said. I quote: "...evolution is not very plausible, which is an opinion that is held by many intelligent Creation scientists and even some evolutionists." Of course, you also said "Many evolutionists admit that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution", which I would love to see supported, because I believe it to be nonsense.

Never mind. I think there's an exemption from the commandment when it comes to lying in debates.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 10:33 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 59 (4208)
02-12-2002 7:16 AM


Abiogenesis is part of the "General Theory of Evolution." I have a right to include it. It may not be included in biological evolution, but that does not matter as Abiogenesis is clearly part of the General Theory of Evolution.

Mutation-Selection I find ridiculous because scientists expect upward and onward progress from random mutations that are generally negative. Of the ones that are beneficial, few increase information. Given the extreme amount of information present in today's species, we should be able to see information steadily increasing all the time.

Punctuated Equilibrium is I believe an indication of the lack of evidence for mutation-selection to work. It seems like a desperate attempt to explain the theory. It is also a theory BASED on lack of evidence, which I doubt you would find scientific.

However, I do not want to get into discussion on these topics. This is merely a side note.

"Nice straw man, but I never said that the majority of Creation Scientists hold no credentials. I said the majority of creationists don't. Which is surely true."

You can say that all day, but it has nothing to do with the Creation Theory. I should not be drug down because some stupid 9-year-old asked a question like "why are apes still aroung then?" The stupidity of these comments is only indicative of that individual.

"Who said anything about defining a group? I made a simple point; that the majority of creationists have no scientific knowledge, qualifications or training. That, surely, is simply obvious fact."

Fine. But you should realize that this does NOTHING to discredit the Creation model.

"Actually, it's EXACTLY what you said. I quote: "...evolution is not very plausible, which is an opinion that is held by many intelligent Creation scientists and even some evolutionists." Of course, you also said "Many evolutionists admit that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution", which I would love to see supported, because I believe it to be nonsense."

Sorry for being misleading there. That is not what I meant. It IS true that some scientists are doubtful of their area, which I will show you with a few quotes later.

It is unfair for you to ask Creationists to answer your ridiculous question with only two answers:

1. I'm a dumbass
2. I'm a REAL dumbass

Surely your question is meant only to amuse yourself so you can think we are all ignorant. I provided you a third possibility

3. I'm a reasonably intelligent human being

but you didn't seem to like my third possibility. Perhaps it's because it shows that Creationists can be objective and intelligent. But this simply cannot be in your mind, so you will continue to babble on with posts claiming us ignorant, yet your posts are totally devoid of facts. Your debating style up to this point has been nothing but insult, but I think insulting Creationists prove your flaws and not ours.


toff
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 59 (4213)
02-12-2002 8:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Abiogenesis is part of the "General Theory of Evolution." I have a right to include it. It may not be included in biological evolution, but that does not matter as Abiogenesis is clearly part of the General Theory of Evolution.

Sorry, abiogenesis is not any part of evolutionary theory, or even of the 'General Theory of Evolution' (whatever that is). It is a separate field, which has some overlap with evolutionary theory, as physics has some overlap with chemistry. It doesn't make them the same field. Abiogenesis is no part of evolutionary theory.
[b] [QUOTE]
Mutation-Selection I find ridiculous because scientists expect upward and onward progress from random mutations that are generally negative. Of the ones that are beneficial, few increase information. Given the extreme amount of information present in today's species, we should be able to see information steadily increasing all the time.
[/b][/QUOTE]

And we do, and have, repeatedly. We see it in short-lived animals, like bacteria and flies, because to see it in more long-lived animals would take far longer than we have been knowledgably observing them.
[b] [QUOTE]
Punctuated Equilibrium is I believe an indication of the lack of evidence for mutation-selection to work. It seems like a desperate attempt to explain the theory. It is also a theory BASED on lack of evidence, which I doubt you would find scientific.
[/b][/QUOTE]

It is a theory which attempts to explain why, in some instances, fewer fossils showing gradual change are found than could be expected. And, as I said, it is relatively new and not accepted by all evolutionary theorists.
[b] [QUOTE]
"Nice straw man, but I never said that the majority of Creation Scientists hold no credentials. I said the majority of creationists don't. Which is surely true."

You can say that all day, but it has nothing to do with the Creation Theory. I should not be drug down because some stupid 9-year-old asked a question like "why are apes still aroung then?" The stupidity of these comments is only indicative of that individual.
[/b][/QUOTE]

I wasn't trying to 'drug' anyone down. I was making a simple statement of fact, one that you complained about, and you were sufficiently irate as to lie about what I actually said. I corrected you.
[b] [QUOTE]
"Who said anything about defining a group? I made a simple point; that the majority of creationists have no scientific knowledge, qualifications or training. That, surely, is simply obvious fact."

Fine. But you should realize that this does NOTHING to discredit the Creation model.
[B][QUOTE]
It wasn't intended to. It was a simple statement of fact, made in context, that you took issue with. Now that it's shown you shouldn't have taken issue with it, your response is "So what? That doesn't prove anything!" It was never supposed to 'prove' anything, beyond precisely what it says.
[/b][/QUOTE]

"Actually, it's EXACTLY what you said. I quote: "...evolution is not very plausible, which is an opinion that is held by many intelligent Creation scientists and even some evolutionists." Of course, you also said "Many evolutionists admit that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution", which I would love to see supported, because I believe it to be nonsense."

Sorry for being misleading there. That is not what I meant. It IS true that some scientists are doubtful of their area, which I will show you with a few quotes later.
[/B][/QUOTE]

If it's not what you meant, then you should be more careful, because it's PRECISELY what you said. And I note that you don't show these quotes to point out the evolutionists who believe that evolution is not very plausible, or that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution.
[b] [QUOTE]
It is unfair for you to ask Creationists to answer your ridiculous question with only two answers:

1. I'm a dumbass
2. I'm a REAL dumbass
[/b][/QUOTE]

It would be, were they the possible answers I gave. They weren't.
[B]

quote:

Surely your question is meant only to amuse yourself so you can think we are all ignorant. I provided you a third possibility

3. I'm a reasonably intelligent human being

but you didn't seem to like my third possibility. Perhaps it's because it shows that Creationists can be objective and intelligent. But this simply cannot be in your mind, so you will continue to babble on w


Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4272 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 59 of 59 (8777)
04-22-2002 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jeff
02-08-2002 5:50 PM


I have just completed some many pages on a YEC economic in the field of map making that in a given metaphysics does provide some scientific support to scientific Creationism if also not making an offeratory to BIBLICAL CREATIONISM but when this work will be available in elctronic form may take a week If i keep at this and not be distracted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jeff, posted 02-08-2002 5:50 PM Jeff has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022