Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Newbie Questions
by AndrewAMD. 12/04/23 11:14
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (TipmyPip, izorro), 556 guests, and 2 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: The Creation Museum [Re: jcl] #145744
08/08/07 13:37
08/08/07 13:37
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

because such bible interpretation usually includes belief in a human being built from dirt on the 6th day after creation.



Wrong, the Bible says that man was created from the dust of the earth, then God breathed life into him. Therefore He was created of part dirt, part breath, not just dirt. Which makes sense since the chemical makeup of the human body is part dirt(carbon and some small elements) and 60% breath (oxygen)

If scientists were ever to falsify abiogenesis by creating life in the lab, then they would need the same "dirt" and "breath" that God used.

Quote:

there is no such thing like rigid official teachings even in Christianity, which consists of thousands of different sects and churches, YEC and OEC only a few among many.




I would love to see the rigid official teachings of the theory of evolution or cosmology. Shall we start with cosmology? Steady state, quasi-steady state, plasma cosmology, cyclic cosmology...

...and the YEC and OEC are not religious sects or churches, they have nothing to do with denominationalism. The churches only effect creation theories if they use the pulpit to teach creationsim, which is generally not the case.

Perhaps YEC's outnumber OEC's, I dont know. I would assume that they probably do, but not based upon a forum poll or any other casual observation. I dont think fastlane has any empirical data either. I never said you were wrong about your guess, I just dont know about this forum polling, my "guess" would also place more US fundamentalists Christians as YEC, but most of them dont really know the difference between OEC and YEC...and most of them dont care

However the reason that YEC's swallow the theory readily without much explanation is that people tend to be sheep and they dont really care about the details. People already have an instinctual belief in creation, so they accept whatever theory is given to them if it lines up with their bias.

Everyone is the same, I would be willing to bet that most of the evolutionists on this forum simply accepted everything their high school biology teacher said about the subject without question. They do this because they already have a pre-disposition not to believe in God. Although a huge amount being taught to high school students about evolution is wrong.

I am also waiting for someone to tell me how evolution can be falsified in a scientific way.

Last edited by NITRO777; 08/08/07 13:43.
Re: The Creation Museum [Re: NITRO777] #145745
08/08/07 14:02
08/08/07 14:02
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,140
Baunatal, Germany
Tobias Offline

Moderator
Tobias  Offline

Moderator

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,140
Baunatal, Germany
Quote:

Wrong, the Bible says that man was created from the dust of the earth, then God breathed life into him. Therefore He was created of part dirt, part breath, not just dirt. Which makes sense since the chemical makeup of the human body is part dirt(carbon and some small elements) and 60% breath (oxygen)



Ahem... well not quite, dust does not consist of "carbon" but of silicium dioxide, and man does not contain "60% oxygen" but 60% water, I don't think God's breath is this wet . Breath of life is a beautiful image but confusing this with a chemical analysis makes me smile...

I also dont think that evolution or cosmology are rigid teachings, they can't be because any new discoveries can change the theories and I think often have.

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: Tobias] #145746
08/08/07 14:14
08/08/07 14:14
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

Ahem... well not quite, dust does not consist of "carbon" but of silicium dioxide, and man does not contain "60% oxygen" but 60% water, I don't think God's breath is this wet


I know, but if you dissassemble the h20 in the body it is in fact 65% oxygen/10% hydrogen

Quote:

Ahem... well not quite, dust does not consist of "carbon" but of silicium dioxide,


the dust could have been rich in limestone, which would have been abundant in calcium carbonates. There is no information about what the dust might be.

Quote:

I don't think God's breath is this wet


Probably not, IM assuming HE used a little water to mix the dust.

Im not trying to present a scientific idea of how God created man, but jcl seemed to want to make a little jab against creationists because they believe man was made out of dirt, and I wanted to make sure that if he was going to paint such an image, he should perhaps get his facts straight.

For life to have come from non-life, carbon would have had to be present in the "dust" anyway. Thsi would be true even in the current "scientific" theories of abiogenesis.

Last edited by NITRO777; 08/08/07 14:32.
Re: The Creation Museum [Re: NITRO777] #145747
08/08/07 17:16
08/08/07 17:16
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline OP
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline OP
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
Quote:

I am also waiting for someone to tell me how evolution can be falsified in a scientific way.




I'm no evolution scientist, but I am a scientist. Hence I can think of several ways:

1) Evolution hinges upon random mutations causing species changes. If we find that the mutations are not random (for example the same DNA sequence is modified time after time or there is a set pattern to the genetic mutations), then it is falsified.

2) Evolution also hinges upon long term changes. If we find that all tapeworm are giving birth (ie: evolves) to a flies (ie: radically different genetics), then it is falsified.

3) Evolution hinges upon small continous changes. So if we can change 2% of an animals genetic material and it still lives and prospers, then evoltuion is falsified.


Falsification is an easy gig: you just settle on the fundamental tenets of the theory and then you find it's inverse. In the case of YEC as I saw in the museum, the theory is falsified by several scientific observations (lack of many dinosaurs on earth as compared to oher animals on the ark, carbon and cosmology timelines pointig at 15 billion years, etc, a rift able to spew oceans in the sky would have left some scar on the earth, no humans or modern day animals with the dinosaur fossils, etc). But these falsifications are swept under the rug as Marco stated or ascribed to the hand of god by which you can explain and do anything you want!

For me the bottom line is that falsification in scince is a good thing and something we seek out. It is completely wrong to think that scientists do not want their theories falsified... that is the root of investigation: find out what is wrong with a theory and modify accordingly. This is in radical counterdistinction to relgions for whom falsification is known as heresy and not to be tolerated. Religion starts with the idea that it is 100% right and infallable; Science starts with the idea that it is 10% right and even that 10% could be wrong!

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: fastlane69] #145748
08/08/07 17:21
08/08/07 17:21
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline OP
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline OP
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
Quote:

I think spirituality is not a counterpart, but a part of religion




I see it the other way around.

Religion is the belief in a anthropomorphic god, a male or female creature that lords above it. It sees, it smells, it can be touched, and thus in principle, it can be understood for it is like us.

Spirituality is the belief is something that doesn't have to be anthropomorphic and doesn't have to lord over us, merely the idea of something beyond the physical realm that touches us, the affects us, in a way that is not subject to physical laws.

So Religion is a subset of spiritality in that they both talk about things beyond this realm, but religion adds a lord who has give us orders (in the form of holy books) whereupon spirituality has no lord and has no one set of holy books but rather belief born of personal investigation.

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: fastlane69] #145749
08/08/07 17:25
08/08/07 17:25
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
M
Marco_Grubert Offline
Expert
Marco_Grubert  Offline
Expert
M

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Quote:

It is completely wrong to think that scientists do not want their theories falsified... that is the root of investigation: find out what is wrong with a theory and modify accordingly.


I think the less flattering truth is that a scientist does not want his theories falsified, but some other scientist has no issues falsifying them since it leads to further insight and funding. So science as a whole strive towards testing theories while individual scientists tend to avoid it once they have found a theory they like.

Quote:

A spiritual person will use their experiences to build up a personal and internal worldview. To them/us, it does not matter if the teachings come from Buddha, Allah, or Carson Daly... if it resonates within whatever we choose to call our "soul" and leads us to a better life for ourselve and those around us, we incorporate it.
A religious person will use their experiences to reinforce what a book or priest has told them to believe. Their worldview is not internal and open for debate but external and absolutely rigid.



I agree with jcl that this distinction is not accurate. There are very few "pure" Catholics or "pure" Protestants. They all pick the parts of their faith that resonate with them as you put it. True they may not go across denominational boundaries but neither does a spiritual person, except that those boundaries might be larger. While this is good from a pragmatic standpoint (less us vs. them thinking) and theologically convenient, it is less useful as far as confirmation is concerned though- it's harder to falsify some "higher power" compared to "bearded guy who caused a flood a few thousand years ago".

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: fastlane69] #145750
08/08/07 18:02
08/08/07 18:02
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

1) Evolution hinges upon random mutations causing species changes. If we find that the mutations are not random (for example the same DNA sequence is modified time after time or there is a set pattern to the genetic mutations), then it is falsified.


I think you might have beat up a strawman with this point because I dont think the randomness of the mutations is as much a staple of evolutionary development as the idea of transformative power of mutations themselves which should be called in question. However I think your addressing an important opinion held by some of the ID(intelligent design) "guided evolution" theorists.

Quote:

2) Evolution also hinges upon long term changes. If we find that all tapeworm are giving birth (ie: evolves) to a flies (ie: radically different genetics), then it is falsified.


Well, yes and no. Quite simply, if we found this phenomena occuring in nature, then we would also be falsifying the processes of DNA transcription found throughout the reproductive cycles of all creatures. Reproduction is a completely observable phenomenon which does not support one theory or another. And I think Im also failing to see how it would relate to the fact that evolution depends upon long term changes.

There are no changes which occur between normal species reproduction inheritance except for mutation. We should never expect there to be such rapid changes, it is actually more of a point for creationist because if we could expect these types of changes then species type itself would be not be immutable, which is a creationist point.

Quote:

3) Evolution hinges upon small continous changes. So if we can change 2% of an animals genetic material and it still lives and prospers, then evoltuion is falsified.



This is similar to your previous point. If you changed a large percentage of a creatures protein sysnthesis genes, and the creature survived, you would be falsifying a natural design, which would also falsify intelligent design itself, it is a creationist viewpoint that each design would not work if it was changed around. This point is equivalent to hypothesizing that a human might live without blood, its just not going to happen, and if it did it would not only falsify evolution, but it would falsify everything we know about biological order and function.

Quote:

lack of many dinosaurs on earth as compared to oher animals on the ark, carbon and cosmology timelines pointig at 15 billion years, etc, a rift able to spew oceans in the sky would have left some scar on the earth, no humans or modern day animals with the dinosaur fossils, etc). But these falsifications are swept under the rug as Marco stated or ascribed to the hand of god by which you can explain and do anything you want!




Well I really dont know what the explanations of YEC creationists are about the scar left from such a rift, or the explanation of human and dinosaur bones not found together, but I dont think Ken Hamm and co. would sweep it under the rug by one appeal to the supernatural.

I can give a few logical reasons why the bones of dinosaurs and humans might not be found together, and I dont think one would need to appeal to a super miraculous hand to do so:

1)If there were a flood of global proportions today, as creationists believe that there once was, the what do you think the likely hood of future paleontolgists finding our bones mixed with...say...emporer penguins would be?
Kind of slim I would guess because penguins dont live with people.

2)Once again, because something hasnt been discovered yet, or is not in "the science journals" (God forbid) does not mean it wont be discovered. There is plenty of sedimentary rock yet to be uncovered, there could be some discovery.

**I dont believe in YEC, but just for the sake of argument, I think there are some natural possibilities which could have occured. I also dont dismiss the possibilty of a supernatural intervention so I keep open minded.

Quote:

carbon and cosmology timelines pointig at 15 billion years,


Just FYI, carbon dating itself can only be used to measure ages up to about 60000 years but im sure you meant to say "radiometric dating" which would encompass uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating, among others.

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: NITRO777] #145751
08/08/07 18:32
08/08/07 18:32
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
capanno Offline
Serious User
capanno  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
Just to throw in a stone...

"If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it" (Pensee , Winter 1973, p.44).

I just love evolutionary reasoning...

I don't want to get involved. Its kind of amusing watching people dancing around in ignorance.

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: capanno] #145752
08/08/07 19:06
08/08/07 19:06
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
M
Marco_Grubert Offline
Expert
Marco_Grubert  Offline
Expert
M

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Quote:

I don't want to get involved. Its kind of amusing watching people dancing around in ignorance.


Speaking of ignorance: whenever you come across creationists supposedly quoting biologists, do yourself a favor and check the accuracy of the quote first. Almost all of them are lies, fabrications, or distortions.

Homework assignment:
a) look up the quote you posted and figure out who said it
b) when was it said ?
c) what was the person's profession

Bonus points for finding out who the audience for this statement was and why it was said

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: capanno] #145753
08/08/07 21:30
08/08/07 21:30
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

"If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it" (Pensee , Winter 1973, p.44).

I just love evolutionary reasoning...




What's wrong with double checking the results? If a sample got contaminated and suddenly gives an ages that's 100% impossible, of course it will get dropped... That's not evolutionary reasoning, that's making sure the facts are actually facts and not the result of some contaminated samples...

It's your ignorance and bias towards these scientific methods that always make me smile. You're a nice guy and smart guy, but in general people shouldn't make claims about things they do not really understand. The C14-method is not magic, it's vulnerable to 'human errors' just the same as any other scientific method too and scientists are well aware of that. There have been plenty of cases where the archaeologists had to adjust their theory because on a later date it turned out something was much much older/younger beyond reasonable doubt. It's a bit hard to determine whether or not a near-reasonable result was accurate or still the result of contamination in some way. So yes, in some cases this could cause some controversy, but those cases are both well known 'in the scene' and well documented, so in the end there's really no discussion needed, there's really no justification for such 'it's-all-propaganda' claims. Also, don't forget that knowing something's age is considered usefull and interesting information, so of course it will be in the articles, even if just an estimation.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1