|
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, rki),
390
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68931
04/18/06 17:37
04/18/06 17:37
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,427
Japan
A.Russell
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,427
Japan
|
I'll bet there aren't any Budhists contributing to that site, are there Irish?
They have played down the Christianity aspect, but there are still references to Christianity and religion to be found there.
Furthermore, the site appears to have a political rather than scientific objective. The articles are only refuting scientific evidence and methods that support evolution theory by any means possible. i.e. They have an agenda.
I wonder what their alternative theory is....... could it be "The Christian God of American fundamentalists created everything! Yay God! If you're happy and you know it..."
As for your idea that science is a materialistic belief system (and out to get you good, God fearing Christians, no less). This is not valid since science doesn't require faith. Push a button, a light turns on. It happens whether you want to believe it or not. I bet my toaster oven will work just as well for a Muselman as it will for a Christian.
I was going to add something about whether you really believe the stories written Arabs living in tents and huts thousands of years ago, but of course you do. You probably believe most of the sensationalist crap you watch on T.V as well, and get riled up by the oratory of television evangelists. In which case, it really seems silly trying to reason with you. My appologies if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: A.Russell]
#68932
04/18/06 18:09
04/18/06 18:09
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
attacking dating methods is quite puny because its not the radiation method alone that determines age. One way more simple is the geological one. short: the earth "hull" itself is a large time line. though i still didnt get any answer to my qustion at all. another big mistake when talking about evolution is to think its a line with a target at the end. Its nonesense to think that our current horse is the best result of evolution. as a matter of fact its the only one that survived for a couple of reasons. This is also why there is nothing like good or bad mutation in general or good or bad evolution. you can not answer the questions "are gills a good or bad mutation" because the terminus good or bad is not related to the result at all (gills in this case). Its like asking if 1 is a good or bad number. timeline of the horses (sorry just german):  Taking me back to my statement that only 1% of new species survive on the long run (something you found uninteresting as far as i can remeber. Though combined with everything said so far just another brick that fits into the smooth sheme) the argument for "familiar" animals or horse like creatures is far more an argument for evolution then against it.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#68933
04/18/06 18:18
04/18/06 18:18
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
As has been explained a 100000 times, ALL forms are "transitional", in fact all life is constantly in transition. The notion of "transitional" forms, missing links, etc, are human constructs created to highlight this fact.
Since we haven't seen this transition happening, you have yet to convince me of this. You keep saying it happens, but whenever you guys give me an example, I've been able to point out how those examples are non-evolutionary changes to a species. No matter how many times you don't evolve a creature, its never going to evolve. Of course, I'm wrong because I'm crazy, not because I use science and logic to refute the point.
Quote:
This "science against evolution" website is a joke, you cant quote this as scientific evidence--it's a loony bin.
That's because you'll listen to whatever you're told like a sheep. That's fine, since you don't grasp the logic of specific arguments for or against evolution, so you need someone to figure it out for you. If that works for you, ok. It doesn't work for me.
The scientific purity of your responses Matt has humbled me. How could I not see that science has been wrong this whole time because everyone who disagrees with you is crazy. My eyes have been opened, thank you.
Quote:
I'll bet there aren't any Budhists contributing to that site, are there Irish?
I didn't suppose you guys were stupid enough not to believe they weren't christians, but that's not the point. If you have a problem with their arguments, or if you notice inconsistencies, please do elaborate. However, your retaliation of, "They're just simple minded children who don't know a thing because they probably all believe in God," isn't very scientific. I don't claim not to believe evolutionists because they're stupid, but simply because I disagree with the conclusions they come to or I think they stop short of discovering the truth if it means being able to jump to the conclusion that evolution must be true. That doesn't make them stupid, or anything like that, it just makes them biased. Everyone's biased, so unlike you guys I'm not trying to claim there's some huge discrepency between creationists and evolutionists, because I don't need to belittle your side to prove how science has no place in evolution.
It is interesting that you guys resort to that sort of thing, though. You'd think with science being on your side, you wouldn't have to. But, whatever.
Could you imagine if I were doing what you guys were doing? Every time you gave me some evidence of evolution I just yelled, "It can't be true because whoever came up with that is crazy!" The crap would hit the fan real fast. But when you do it, its just because you're too enlightened to use science as an argument. You don't need to after all because you've got more people on your side, and that makes you right.
This response isn't really referring to JCL or Marco or anyone else who's managed to argue calmy, rationaly, and fairly. Although I don't think there really was anyone else.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68934
04/18/06 18:51
04/18/06 18:51
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
I have a question for you. The morphology of the horse doesn't really fit in very well with other animals. I mean, in a more general slide show you've got arms, wings of creatures that all look fairly similar in design (bats, primates, humans, etc). Then horses pop out of nowhere with their strangely designed arms, and you get told its like that, just because that's what the horse needs. Well, if the slideshow of life is so important to you, then how come its not important when a creature doesn't fit this slideshow?
What exactly do you mean with 'doesn't fit the slideshow' here? There are all kinds of different animals that wouldn't fit your slideshow then... Take for example the billions of insects, bugs and more specialistic creatures like the cameleon;
( )
Your distinction is artificial, you can't deny that those creatures do exist. Thinking of one of them as being a bit odd or strange/not fitting is silly, what makes them not fit into the slideshow? The lack of 'missing links', intermediate forms etc. is a non-argument, there are plenty of those available... And you shouldn't forget a lot of species have died out from which the new species are still walking around, so we may very well see common features between a goat and a cow, yet the direct link inbetween might be vague. That's still no prove of the contrary in my opinion, and this would be when we would entirely ignore the fossils. About the bones thing you brought up, from most species that already have died out, there's not really much more left then bones, from which still a lot can be derived. Definately more than just size and weight  . I'm not sure what you've meant with 'dressed in more than just bones', but suppose you mean colors and other features of the animals that are not similar, they all use the same content, just in different sizes, small differences in shapes and forms and more. So what? There are plenty of pencils made by us, we all can distinguish them rather easily as pencils, you know why? Keyfeatures and things a pencils would need to have in order to be called a pencil. Why wouldn't this work the same with things that are defined yet as such, but who do share a lot of similarities? You imply it's illogic, I think it's perfectly reasonable.
Quote:
You assume that there is no question to the accuracy of the dating methods. When they give an unexpected date, it must be contaminated. Much like coal. They still can't figure out why coal has 14C in it, and yet it can't have 14C in it because coal takes millions of years to form. So they'll do whatever it takes to find that evidence.
I think this is kinda outdated too... We now much more about 14C now, 14C in the atmosphere can contaminate it...
Wikipedia;
Quote:
1. New 14C is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, 14C from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add "modern" 14C to coal are:
* Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal.
* Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
* Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers.
Minute amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that carbon dating can measure.
It doesn't matter if it gives a 50.000 years as a dating, it's near the limit, what would be right if it's contaminated by the atmosphere or other agents, this contamination can be more, can be less too.
Quote:
Since we never see things appearing out of nowhere, then tell me why your example even matters now.
Sorry to bring this up, but.. irony...
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 04/18/06 18:58.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68935
04/18/06 18:51
04/18/06 18:51
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
attacking dating methods is quite puny because its not the radiation method alone that determines age.
Well, then since you bring up other methods, then tell me why they all conflict with each other? I would ignore the other ones if I were you.
Quote:
another big mistake when talking about evolution is to think its a line with a target at the end.
Ugh. Please, stop trying to educate me on evolution. I've been told what evolution is my entire life. I live in America.
I know that its not a straight line. However, just because you find a bunch of skeletons and add a fancy tree to them doesn't prove anything about them. You have to first show me how evolution can work in the first place, and then prove that your timeline is indesputible. Unfortunately for you, you can do neither.
Quote:
This is also why there is nothing like good or bad mutation in general or good or bad evolution.
Yes there is. If a mutation causes a creature to be more fit in a given environment, its good. I don't understand what's so difficult about that. It has happened. If the mutation causes the creature to be less fit then its bad.
On the other hand, if a good mutation is caused by a loss of information, then its regressive and for the sake of evolution it is bad, because evolution requires that the creature be more fit AND write data from scratch that makes sense. That never happens, so good or bad does exist, but doesn't necessarily have anything to do with evolution. Evolution requires progressive or non-regressive mutations. You keep showing your little diagrams used to convince children, but I really don't care. If evolution can't happen, then that calls into question every other aspect of it. And since your dating methods aren't precise, then that calls into question whether that diagram is based on truth, or assumptions.
Quote:
you can not answer the questions "are gills a good or bad mutation" because the terminus good or bad is not related to the result at all (gills in this case)
MY POINT EXACTLY! Thank you. Now that we're on the same page, let me tell you that if these gills appear out of nowhere, that's a progressive mutation. Because it wrote the data for gills from scratch, in which case in the context of water its a good mutation because the creature is now more fit in water as opposed to less fit.
Since we never see things appearing out of nowhere, then tell me why your example even matters now.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68936
04/18/06 20:02
04/18/06 20:02
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
On the other hand, if a good mutation is caused by a loss of information, then its regressive and for the sake of evolution it is bad, because evolution requires that the creature be more fit AND write data from scratch that makes sense.
Wrong. Maybe we could call this IFE, Irish_Farmer's Evolution. Evolution as understood by biologists does NOT require data to be created from scratch at all. It only requires change and whether this change comes from deactivating gene expression, activating a dormant gene, inserting bases, or shuffling bases around is IRRELEVANT.
Quote:
Evolution requires progressive or non-regressive mutations.
Still wrong. Where did you get this idea in the first place?
Quote:
Since we never see things appearing out of nowhere, then tell me why your example even matters now.
If they appeared out of nowhere we would have creationism, but you are right: they don't.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Marco_Grubert]
#68937
04/19/06 04:43
04/19/06 04:43
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Wrong. Maybe we could call this IFE, Irish_Farmer's Evolution. Evolution as understood by biologists does NOT require data to be created from scratch at all. It only requires change and whether this change comes from deactivating gene expression, activating a dormant gene, inserting bases, or shuffling bases around is IRRELEVANT.
Ok, so then that means you can find proof that a bacteria can become a man anywhere you want. Sounds convenient.
What I'm saying is that these different methods of mutation haven't led to any evolution (I'm talking about building up, not just change, because just regular old change doesn't explain how germs grew legs (yes I know germs didn't actually grow legs)) within actual creatures. I don't claim to know for sure why this is, but I think its because even the most simple of lifeforms are too complex to be able to be randomly rewritten to something that is more ordered or complex or whatever the word is than the original creature was.
Should I replace the word evolution with another term that doesn't just mean change, to make sure we're on the same page? Because if we're arguing that creatures can change, then we're both on the same side. I know animals can change, I just don't think that the kind of change we've observed can explain what evolution supposedly has done as a whole.
Quote:
Still wrong. Where did you get this idea in the first place?
I'll answer this in the next question. Short version: scientists.
Quote:
If they appeared out of nowhere we would have creationism, but you are right: they don't.
Compare the amount of genetic data in bacteria to that of, say, a human, or really any other complex creature (we could say bird if we really want). Obviously this genetic data came from somewhere. It had to be created randomly, but the point is that it had to be created. You say random chance did it, I say science doesn't know what did it at this time (since science is blind to God, which is ok for the sake of this argument). The point is that it came from somewhere. Am I wrong in assuming that this is what evolutionists believe? Or do you believe that the first living animal was extremely complex and contained all of the possible combinations of genetic data and slowly evolved down into all of the animals we see today?
Let's try an example. I'm a bird. First I evolve to lose my wings (over time, they shrink to nothingness), then I evolve to lose my feathers, and then I evolve to lose my beak, and then I evolve to lose my eyes. Tell me now, how all of these changes fall in the same category of a single cell becoming a person.
Would it not be fair to say that there are two kinds of mutations then? Because some mutations will cause this bird to become a wingless lump of featherless flesh (if it survives that long), and other mutations will cause lizards to grow feathers and beaks and specific lungs, and specific bone structure, and fly off.
This is why I say some mutations are relevant to evolution, and some are not. I don't see evolution simply as change, because some changes don't explain animals becoming more complex. I think the distinction is important. I also think that the only way you wouldn't want to distinguish the two is if you didn't think that there was evidence of the other kind happening (the kind I say is relevant to evolution). Otherwise even in that bird example, you can see this animal slowly degenerate into a useless lump of flesh and say, "Behold, the glory of evolution!"
edit:
Crap, I just saw phemox's post. I'll have to get back to that.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/19/06 04:49.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68938
04/19/06 06:22
04/19/06 06:22
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Quote:
As has been explained a 100000 times, ALL forms are "transitional", in fact all life is constantly in transition. The notion of "transitional" forms, missing links, etc, are human constructs created to highlight this fact.
Since we haven't seen this transition happening, you have yet to convince me of this. You keep saying it happens, but whenever you guys give me an example, I've been able to point out how those examples are non-evolutionary changes to a species. No matter how many times you don't evolve a creature, its never going to evolve. Of course, I'm wrong because I'm crazy, not because I use science and logic to refute the point.
Quote:
This "science against evolution" website is a joke, you cant quote this as scientific evidence--it's a loony bin.
That's because you'll listen to whatever you're told like a sheep. That's fine, since you don't grasp the logic of specific arguments for or against evolution, so you need someone to figure it out for you. If that works for you, ok. It doesn't work for me.
The scientific purity of your responses Matt has humbled me. How could I not see that science has been wrong this whole time because everyone who disagrees with you is crazy. My eyes have been opened, thank you.
Its difficult to argue calmly with someone who is not interested in the truth. So much evidence has been shown here for evolution, from Dinosaurs and birds, to moths and horses, that it becomes a simple case of you denying everything we say... you cant quote this nutcase site which obviously isnt a scientific site but a religous fundamentalist mouthpiece masquerading (and not very well) as a serious science site.
We have repeatedly explained the scientific method, the purpose of scientifc discourse and debate, the importance of empirical evidence, both circumstantial and direct, the varied corpus of scientifc data , inferences and conclusions that show with as close to certainy as science and mankind can ever come that not only does evolution happen, but that it continues to happen, to all life forms.
I see no reason to restate my case a million times for you, when you dont care about anything but your own supposed truths. There comes a time when I can dismiss someone as a bible beater and leave it at that.
I think we have treated you remarkably fairly, for someone with a view point so far out of the mainstream that most scientist wouldnt even dignify your arguements with a response.
If someone makes remarkable claims that are contrary to established science, it doesnt mean they are wrong. It does mean that you need extraordinary evidence to knock down the scientific edifice. Where is your evidence? Your research, in the field and the laboratory? Where is your evidence refuting genetic science? What studies can you cite that show that genetics and DNA are no indicator of biological relationships? What research demolishes the various dating methods, the fossils record, the field of comparitive anatomy?
There is none. But you need to do all these things and more to win the day--the burden of proof is on YOU.
Is there a vast conspiracy to silence them, to deny the truths you and your ilk seem to see so easily? Maybe there is a conspiracy. Maybe scientists are all stupid, or misguided or incompetent.
But how about the most likely choice?.. that you are just wrong.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68939
04/19/06 06:29
04/19/06 06:29
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
What exactly do you mean with 'doesn't fit the slideshow' here? There are all kinds of different animals that wouldn't fit your slideshow then... Take for example the billions of insects, bugs and more specialistic creatures like the cameleon
The point is is that slideshows don't matter. Humans are great at recognizing patterns, so we've figured out a pattern to life. What I'm concerned with is the foundational reasoning behind why people believe these animals transitioned in such a way.
Quote:
The lack of 'missing links', intermediate forms etc. is a non-argument, there are plenty of those available
So what's the intermediate between the prehistoric horse, and whatever animal that came from? I'm not seriously questioning you, I'd just like to know. I didn't think there was one.
Quote:
You imply it's illogic, I think it's perfectly reasonable.
But its not definitive proof. Its just something evolutionists think is a side effect of evolution.
Quote:
I think this is kinda outdated too... We now much more about 14C now, 14C in the atmosphere can contaminate it...
The atmosphere that's below ground?
Quote:
1. New 14C is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, 14C from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add "modern" 14C to coal are:
* Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal.
* Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
* Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers.
Minute amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that carbon dating can measure.
These are just explanations. Nothing has been proved yet. Its pretty slick wording on their part. They give the possibilities and then say, "Minute amounts of contamination from these sources CAN [emphasis added of course] cause..." Sure, they can. But we haven't proved that its the source, and even if they have contaminated the coal, we have to prove that its consistent with what we find in the coal. Be patient.
I'm not saying we won't find out this was contaminated. Frankly, this isn't really that great of an example compared to the other really great examples of discrepencies. Its just something to ponder.
What I find more incriminating is the circular reasoning employed with the geological strata.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/19/06 06:29.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68940
04/19/06 06:43
04/19/06 06:43
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Matt, can you argue with anything except your opinion? I've given many, many sound responses to supposed examples of evolution. Which is why people who are smarter than you, JCL and Marco, have been able to converse with me on the subject. You on the other hand have insisted on not responding, because you don't feel you need to (or are unable to), and instead keep trying to intimidate me into believing what you believe. Which is a good sign of a lack of understanding of the discourse.
I'll make things easy on you, Matt. From now on, I will not respond to anything you have to say on the subject of evolution, or the question of how reliable opinions other than your own are. You can ignore me too, since you have nothing of any use to say anyway, and people who are actually interested in the debate can continue on.
You're not going to get me to shut my mouth by making me afraid to believe what I believe. Of course, that might seem like a good idea to you since fighting a war for your beliefs (isn't that what atheists get so mad at christians for?), or forcing people via fascism to believe what you believe is a good idea according to you.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/19/06 06:44.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
