|
Creation vs Evolution (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
How am I giving up? I simply cannot do anything over your ignorance of known scientific events such as chemistry. I'm telling you to "get over it" because you need to learn to accept certain premises to be true, because it's logically ridiculous to handwave such highly acceptable known events. If you don't want me saying that, I'll simply say something else.
How's, "stop being ignorant and foolish"?
|
There is really no need for name calling. I respect your point of view and I would hope you respect mine as well.
| quote: |
With your ridiculous logic that is exactly what you are doing.
|
The fact you think my logic is, indeed, ridiculous, shows just how much faith and hope you put into your fantasy of a theory.
| quote: |
I'm sorry you didn't pay attention. Understand, however, that it's with high reliability that we know and understand a great deal more about the world such as certain medications or combinations of medicaton can cure diseases, greatly slow down HIV, cancer, cistic fibrosis; or quicken the healing of broken bones, lesions, etc. Otherwise we'd still be attributing the Plague to Satan without understanding that it came from rat fecies, or that leeches will heal diseases, or that dunking witches until they drown will both convert the witch into a Christian and cure the town of it's agricultural hardships.
|
Your argument here is not only off the point, but is once again trying to skew my logic. I do admit that people in the past have chalked unknown occurances up to Satan (plague,etc) - but that really doesn't have anything to do with our argument.
| quote: |
It's with high reliability that we know how to make successful aircrafts, drive more efficient cars, transfer data quicker through fiber optic cabling, or pretty much any discovery for that matter.
It's just science, stop being ignorant and foolish. |
I don't see where you are going with your statistical viewpoint of the history of the world. That's like trying to use the Drake equation to see how many intelligent lifeform civilizations exist -- you have to guess on every single part of the equation. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
That's who you reminded me of! Zindler. Haha, I hadn't read this debate in a while...
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...is-zindler.html
Proof of the flood? Morris said it well:
MORRIS: I think the story of the flood clearly has its miraculous aspects to it; but by and large, the kinds of things that are mentioned in the scriptures regarding Noah's flood are natural processes. I mean we're talking rainfall and erosion and deposition; and these sorts of things are present processes that are studiable and understandable. [20] And in those areas, by all means, I do believe that the flood account is compatible with the geologic data. Now we can't prove the flood; [21] we didn't see the flood. It's totally outside the realm of our experience, and so we can only argue by analogy of that. My study of geology has shown me that by and large all of the rock units that are on the earth's surface were laid down by catastrophic processes. [22] We've studied, we have a big study of Mt. St. Helens, for instance, and we study that terrible catastrophe and we see the sorts of things... that dinky little volcano- I mean it wasn't too dinky for people living on the north side of the mountain in 1980... But that dinky little volcano did the sorts of things, laid down the sorts of layers that we see in the geologic record throughout. All of geology is beginning to move toward this catastrophic interpretation of the rocks...
....
ZINDLER: Chalk is being formed in the present...
MORRIS: ...that's right, but we have to impose on that [sic] data certain assumptions, a certain interpretive framework. In geology we were taught... you were taught, I was taught, that the present is the key to the past...
ZINDLER: Sure...
MORRIS: ...and by studying the present we may find analogies... and so we might know something about the past. But as I said, at Mt. St. Helens, there are episodes in the present which give us a peek into a very catastrophic possibility for the past... [25]
ZINDLER: It shows the 27 buried fossils...at Yellowstone Park...it shows quite clearly how 27 layers of fossil forests were buried [26] ... But getting back to the chalk, how could chalk have been formed? These are microscopic fossils of organisms... There is a very strict limitation as to how many of these organisms can live in the sea at any one time. There are remains of little granules formed by algae, the so-called coccoliths. You can only grow so many algae per square meter of surface of the sea at one time...
MORRIS: Let me tell you the error of your thinking, Frank. You're making the assumption that the present is the key to the past... |
How does what Morris state at the end in any way prove a Flood?
This is your evidence? A dialogue? Are you being serious? You honestly expect me or anyone here to take you seriously?
Could you please try a little harder with your evidence? A dialogue debate does very little to support physical evidence. I really hope you know better than that.
....
| quote: | | Brother Opus, we're having the same argument here. |
I am not your father, nor am I your brother. You need not call me either one.
In what way, shape, or form is our arguments the same?
If you're about to say the word "assumptions" again, I think the Peanut Gallery's going to laugh out loud with your absurd definition by now.
| quote: | | I'll concede the fact that you, as evolutionists, have a lot more qualified scientists to back up your theory, hence more biased "evidences" and whatnot - but we're still arguing a mute point are we? |
Explain.
| quote: | What I don't get is why you still take your belief as fact.
I've admitted time and time again that what I believe is indeed a belief, and that it takes faith.
What I don't get it why someone as bright as yourself would delude yourself so much as not realizing evolution takes faith and is indeed a belief, not scientific fact. |
I believe I've supported my assertions as to why evolution is a fact, and why evolutionary theory is highly supported with strong corroborating evidence from multiple science fields, and is the best explanation of life changes over a long period of time.
Why are you calling me delusional? I think at this point it's more likely that instead of my delusion, you are just being willfully ignorant of my arguments against you. I have logically supported my assertions, yet you have done a rather poor job doing the same for yours. I appreciate the fact that you resort to calling your story merely an unsupported "belief", but given what I have stated thus far, why are you having such a difficult time accepting my logical arguments?
How do you decifer what a scientific fact is? Evolutionary theory relies on scientific facts to support its theory, but it is the best explanation to date. How is it that those facts that support the theory are not "scientific" enough for you?
You've done a poor job attempting to equate evolution with faith. Please try harder.
It's just science. No need to fear it. Keep it separate from your religous beliefs, and you'll sleep better at night. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
There is really no need for name calling. I respect your point of view and I would hope you respect mine as well. |
How is telling you that you are "ignorant and foolish" a name call?
You call me delusional without merit, why can I not call you ignorant and foolish at this point?
| quote: | | The fact you think my logic is, indeed, ridiculous, shows just how much faith and hope you put into your fantasy of a theory. |
You are being illogical so far - that is a given. You do not need me to decide that. A simple examination of your arguments demonstrates as much.
You haven't demonstrated how I use faith or hope in demonstrating my theory.
You haven't demonstrated why my theory is fantasy.
These are unsupported assertions. More logical discrepencies on your part. Please support your assertions.
| quote: | | Your argument here is not only off the point, but is once again trying to skew my logic. I do admit that people in the past have chalked unknown occurances up to Satan (plague,etc) - but that really doesn't have anything to do with our argument. |
It has everything to do with our argument - it is scientific methodology put into practice. You seem to be having difficulties accepting this. Please explain why now.
| quote: | | I don't see where you are going with your statistical viewpoint of the history of the world. That's like trying to use the Drake equation to see how many intelligent lifeform civilizations exist -- you have to guess on every single part of the equation. |
Everything is based on probability - that's just simple quantum mechanics.
My point is that statistical probability is a necessity in testing hypotheticals and theories. This is have faster planes, for example, than 40 yrs. ago - new material and newer technology was tested, retested, and given a much higher probability of strength, efficiency, etc.
Newer drugs were tested, retested, and shown statistically to be more effective in fighting or curing diseases. A mere discovery or observation is not enough. One must utilize statistical probability in testing that discovery or observation for it to become more reliable.
This is my point, and you are missing it completely. Why the difficulty? |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Explain. By particles releasing subatomic particles we can trace back to the age of those items with high probability (hence being highly reliable). How is that circular?
|
| quote: |
I appreciate you admitting your flawed logic. Please explain how dating is similarly flawed.
|
All current dating techniques use assumptions that we've already discussed. Every attempt for you to disprove them being assumptions has failed, because you used circular reasoning (assumed data and biased viewpoints) to disprove them.
as·sump·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
n.
1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2. The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
5. Presumption; arrogance.
6. Logic. A minor premise.
You've admitted that you've assumed things in your evidences for evolution.
Can you honestly say that all scientific theories are absolute truth and a. Could not have been different at a time (which I believe is due to a Biblical Flood or Fall of Man) - and b. That they will never change ?
Showing that much blind faith and absolute devote belief is quite astounding. You should have been a Catholic priest. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Keep in mind, I'm open to the possibility, despite the fact that it would completely undermine known and highly accepted chemical and nuclear phenomena (we really should be throwing away all those nuclear research papers by now). You just haven't done a very good job demonstrating it.
|
I don't think it would undermine any of those. I don't see provable evidence of the Flood ever coming, however, because it can't be proven using your assumed scientific methods and presuppositions.
| quote: |
It is not up to me to prove a negative. I could just as easily say I would like to see the probability formula you use to come to the conclusion that the Great Cookie Monster from the Planet Zoinks! cried his eyes out from above because he ran out of cookies and caused a worldwide flood from his tears, did not happen.
Rather than attempt to prove a negative (which is a logical fallacy), the burden is on you to prove the positive.
Enough dodging. Show me your positive, verifiable, testable, and falsifiable evidence of a worldwide flood now, please. |
Oh, I do love your Cookie Monster. :P
You're asking me to play cards with a loaded deck, aren't you? Prove something using biased points of view and methods? No thanks.
There are plenty of Flood theories out there. They are all refuted by your "science" because they don't fit into the evolutionist view. Take away the biased and presuppositions of science, and Flood theories actually make sense. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I read and understand the basic premises and observations performed by scientists, I read and understand that they hypothesize and test their hypothesis, and that they draw conclusions based on their tests as to whether or not their observations were correct. These tests are then repeated again and again by other scientists to test the reliability of the initial observations, and more of the same conclusions are reached. Other scientists perform other tests and observations that often coincide with the previous scientists' work, sometimes in an unrelated field, and those observations corroborate well with each other.
But it gets better, a piece that I have left out so far - these scientists then utilize their data to predict future observations and future discoveries - and lo and behold the predictions are right on the money.
This has been the case with evolution. It has withstood this process for over 150 yrs., the same process that is utilized with every other field of science.
It's just science. Stop being ignorant and foolish.
|
A bunch of scientists proving and reproving and testing and retesting things that all have the same presuppositions, the same assumptions, will of course make sense in that sort of logic. It's like setting your clock 10 minutes ahead - and a year from now, it will have been perfectly keeping time, working perfectly - but it's still 10 minutes off from the "real" time. That's what science has done - we've looked at and examined the clock, and it's making sense how it works - but we have no idea when it was originally set for.
| quote: |
Am I supposed to be scared by this somehow?
Look, anyone can believe in anything they choose. I have no beef with unsupported beliefs. You want to belief in Christ - cool. You want to belief in Allah, lovely. You want to believe in the Great Cookie Monster from the Planet Zoinks!, knock yourself out.
But there has been and always will be a difference between an unsupported belief and supported scientific phenomena. As I've stated before, you're much better off not to intermingle the two.
Besides, you did not tell me why you choose not to believe in those other stories.
And so to conclude, am I to understand that all events are therefore relative to a human witness to those events?
So I can kill your mother without anyone ever seeing it happen, and you would agree that it's logical to conclude that I am not the culprit? Did God bring down His mighty hand and stab her with a knife then?
How about Lucifer?
Zeus?
Allah?
Great Cookie Monster? |
No, it's not supposed to scare you - you're just calling a hell of a lot of people wrong. It makes me tingle a bit thinking about it, because it's exactly what Peter said - you are calling everyone else in the past stupid, foolish, hell, even crazy - because everything they eye-witnessed and wrote about is refuted in one moment because of your self-indulgence of superior intellect. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What's your problem with a 1 in 12 billion or so probability figure on all these darn "assumptions"?
|
Show me the formula you used to come to the conclusion that the chances of a worldwide flood were 1 in 12 billion. I'm interested.
| quote: |
In order for it to be a moot point, you need to provide positive verifiable evidence that a catastrophic, world wide flood occurred.
Why are you avoiding this?
|
You know as well as I do that I have evidence for a flood just as you have evidence for evolution. However, we cannot examine these because they conflict - You can't prove evolution through Biblical reasoning, and I can't prove the Flood through evolutionary reasoning.
| quote: |
And shy of your flood theory (which you have yet to present), it proves the reliability of that particular dating method.
|
See above statement. Your reliable dating methods are only reliable in your self-revolving universe where evolution is the "only" way to interpret evidence.
| quote: |
But let's suppose on Make-Believe Land if I agree to the fallacious theory of the Flood, and that would mean that the decay rates are erroneous. How then, would that coincide with the known factors of present day decay rates?
|
Yes, exactly. I'm not saying that scientific methods on achieving the decay rates are flawed, I'm saying that the Flood factor would have skewed said data for things to appear older than they are. Take in consideration of the Flood, and any dating technique can be instantly dismissed as erroneous due to the unknown effect a worldwide Flood would have on said dating techniques.
| quote: |
IOW, if decay rates are NOT constant, how could we rely on the expiration dates of drugs being constant?
|
Unless the drugs were created circa 4000 B.C., I think we're safe.
| quote: |
How could we rely on nuclear reactions of highly unstable material that fuel our energy?
|
| quote: |
How could we rely on chemical pesticides having any effect on crops?
|
| quote: |
If we cannot rely on constant decay rates, how would all these occurrences be possible?
|
Once again, current methods of observing said material in the now are stable and reliable.
| quote: |
What is the underlying mechanism that causes the change in the decay rates, so chemists, physicists, astronomers, biologists, and paleontologists, can understand and predict these changes in order for their work to be more logically consistent?
Do you not understand the major fallacy of your argument yet as we apply it to present day science?
|
I do hope you didn't think I thought all scientific methods used were unreliable - I just said they make certain initial assumptions geared toward an evolutionists point of view. This won't effect stability or reliability in most aspects of work and research done with science.
| quote: |
BTW, those reads are pretty extensive. Forgive me if I seem a little incredulous in your reading skills.
|
I skimmed a few of them.
| quote: |
You haven't provided supporting evidence that they are not constant. Please do so now.
|
Well, quoting you...
| quote: |
"Rather than attempt to prove a negative (which is a logical fallacy), the burden is on you to prove the positive."
|
Prove to me they've always been constant. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
How is telling you that you are "ignorant and foolish" a name call?
You call me delusional without merit, why can I not call you ignorant and foolish at this point?
|
Touche.
| quote: |
You are being illogical so far - that is a given. You do not need me to decide that. A simple examination of your arguments demonstrates as much.
You haven't demonstrated how I use faith or hope in demonstrating my theory.
You haven't demonstrated why my theory is fantasy.
|
Me being illogical? Perhaps, but only as much as you, my friend. You spit out "fact" after "fact", seemingly unaware that everything you've ever said supporting evolution theory relies on presuppositions and ideas that aren't provable. Your theory uses a biased and, in my view, wrong, framework. I don't know how I can get this through to you, but I'm trying.
Science has a good graps on how the world works NOW. It tries and use this same logic to decode what has happened in the past, and that is ILLOGICAL. Is it not? I'm not, and never have been, trying to undermine or refute the methods and brilliance used in science today - however - the assumptions that science has made over the last 100 or so years are so blatently biased toward evolution that it's got to the point where not many people realize they were assumptions to begin with.
| quote: |
Everything is based on probability - that's just simple quantum mechanics.
My point is that statistical probability is a necessity in testing hypotheticals and theories. This is have faster planes, for example, than 40 yrs. ago - new material and newer technology was tested, retested, and given a much higher probability of strength, efficiency, etc.
|
I'm not refuting your logic here. However, you are trying to use it to explain past events.
| quote: |
Newer drugs were tested, retested, and shown statistically to be more effective in fighting or curing diseases. A mere discovery or observation is not enough. One must utilize statistical probability in testing that discovery or observation for it to become more reliable.
|
Agreed. Please explain to me how statisical probabilty can predict or show me the probability that there was or wasn't a Flood 2400 years ago, or that the half-life of something has been constant since the beginning of time. I'd like to see the formula and data you use. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
All current dating techniques use assumptions that we've already discussed. Every attempt for you to disprove them being assumptions has failed, because you used circular reasoning (assumed data and biased viewpoints) to disprove them.
as·sump·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
n.
1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2. The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
5. Presumption; arrogance.
6. Logic. A minor premise.
You've admitted that you've assumed things in your evidences for evolution. |
Why are you avoiding what I said when I went with your definition of "assumption"? I went with your definition to prove a point - I took your definition to it's logical absurdity, why do you continue to overlook that?
By your definition, every single thing we do starts off as an assumption. I substituted the word "assumption" with premise. It does not change our definition, however.
These premises are then tested and retested over and over again. Through rigorous testing they are given a certain reliability through probability of those events occurring.
The premise or "assumption" is deemed highly reliable and valid through it's high probability of occurring. Why are you avoiding this?
Seriously, do you have a reading problem? What's wrong with you?
| quote: | | Can you honestly say that all scientific theories are absolute truth and a. Could not have been different at a time (which I believe is due to a Biblical Flood or Fall of Man) - and b. That they will never change ? |
Please point to where I stated that scientific theories = absolute truth. You really have a difficult time reading my statements, don't you? I stated that a theory is the best explanation of a given natural phenomena, SUPPORTED by a given set of highly reliable and valid facts.
The process of evolution is a fact. I demonstrated this with the simple bacterial culture experiment. Many thousands of other experiments are done in a similar manner.
I demonstrated how the process of 1/2 life decay rates is a fact. Many thousands of experiments from a multitude of sciences and physics rely on this fact.
I demonstrated how these two facts give support to the explanation that is known as evolutionary theory. That theory is simply the best explanation we have today. If there's a better one in the future, grand.
It's no different than the theory of gravity. If there's a better explanation for gravity in the future, so be it. If you doubt these type of theories based on supporting evidence, I suggest you test them yourself. Feel free to jump off a very high cliff to see if such a theory is not supported by evidence.
| quote: | | Showing that much blind faith and absolute devote belief is quite astounding. You should have been a Catholic priest. |
You're repeating an unsubstantiated claim that I have a mere "belief" with blind faith. I have easily demonstrated otherwise with supporting evidence to the contrary.
Do you have a reading difficulty? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
I don't think it would undermine any of those. I don't see provable evidence of the Flood ever coming, however, because it can't be proven using your assumed scientific methods and presuppositions. |
I assumed nothing. I merely examined supporting evidence for both.
Why do you refuse to do the same?
| quote: | | Oh, I do love your Cookie Monster. :P |
Do not insult His Highness!
| quote: | You're asking me to play cards with a loaded deck, aren't you? Prove something using biased points of view and methods? No thanks.
There are plenty of Flood theories out there. They are all refuted by your "science" because they don't fit into the evolutionist view. Take away the biased and presuppositions of science, and Flood theories actually make sense. |
How is telling you to support your assertions with positive, verifiable evidence loading the deck?
Explain the bias, please.
It's not just the evolutionary point of view that those worldwide stories do not fit - it's the geologic, meteorlogic, ecologic, and astronomic point of views that are supported with sound, reliable evidence.
How is that loading the deck? |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
How does what Morris state at the end in any way prove a Flood?
This is your evidence? A dialogue? Are you being serious? You honestly expect me or anyone here to take you seriously?
|
No, I was quoting this:
Now we can't prove the flood; [21] we didn't see the flood. It's totally outside the realm of our experience, and so we can only argue by analogy of that. My study of geology has shown me that by and large all of the rock units that are on the earth's surface were laid down by catastrophic processes.
| quote: |
I am not your father, nor am I your brother. You need not call me either one.
|
Brother in faith. I will stop calling you that if it truely bothers you, however. I thought it was kind of cool.
| quote: |
In what way, shape, or form is our arguments the same?
If you're about to say the word "assumptions" again, I think the Peanut Gallery's going to laugh out loud with your absurd definition by now.
|
Oh, you know I will. ;) Are arguments are the same because neither of our points of view can be proven or disproven using unbiased and unassumed framework.
| quote: |
quote:
I'll concede the fact that you, as evolutionists, have a lot more qualified scientists to back up your theory, hence more biased "evidences" and whatnot - but we're still arguing a mute point are we?
Explain.
|
What I'm saying is that far more scientists make "dicoveries" and new "evidences" that are biased toward evolution than creation. Let me explain that before you yell "That's because there are more out there!" -- The majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as a factual theory, when it is indeed not. I'll concede that it does make sense, on one level, using a presupposed framework and assumptions about certain things. Until this changes (and I doubt it ever will) - the science community will always be biased toward their theory, and a snowball-like effect (which is happening) will continue.
| quote: |
I believe I've supported my assertions as to why evolution is a fact, and why evolutionary theory is highly supported with strong corroborating evidence from multiple science fields, and is the best explanation of life changes over a long period of time.
Why are you calling me delusional? I think at this point it's more likely that instead of my delusion, you are just being willfully ignorant of my arguments against you. I have logically supported my assertions, yet you have done a rather poor job doing the same for yours. I appreciate the fact that you resort to calling your story merely an unsupported "belief", but given what I have stated thus far, why are you having such a difficult time accepting my logical arguments?
|
I'm not knowingly ignorant of your arguments. I've read them all carefully. You'll have to accept my point of view as taking them as unprovable theory and speculation, however, because they are ignorant of my beliefs. Eeek you say! Science and beliefs together! Well, I believe that the Bible should be used as a science refrence in this case. You don't, and I respect that.
Evolution is the answer and refute to the Bible. You use evolution as your book of faith, I use the Bible. They both make sense in our own little worlds, but are wholly incompatible with each other. However - take away the presuppositions of evolution, and the Bible makes sense, and so does the world we live in. Take away the presuppositions of the Bible, and evolution makes sense. That's a hell of a lot of faith to put in a theory, or a book, I agree.
To conclude that evolution is indeed fact without biased is just as ludicris as me stating the Bible is provable by evolutionary theory. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
A bunch of scientists proving and reproving and testing and retesting things that all have the same presuppositions, the same assumptions, will of course make sense in that sort of logic. It's like setting your clock 10 minutes ahead - and a year from now, it will have been perfectly keeping time, working perfectly - but it's still 10 minutes off from the "real" time. That's what science has done - we've looked at and examined the clock, and it's making sense how it works - but we have no idea when it was originally set for. |
When does this "assumption" in your mind become valid?
If I kill your mother, and the DNA evidence on the knife I am holding correlates to your mother's blood with a high degree of probability (say 1 in 65 billion), does that DNA testing mechanism become valid in your eyes?
Your arguments are becoming more and more absurd. You really do not understand how scientific testing works, do you?
| quote: | | No, it's not supposed to scare you - you're just calling a hell of a lot of people wrong. It makes me tingle a bit thinking about it, because it's exactly what Peter said - you are calling everyone else in the past stupid, foolish, hell, even crazy - because everything they eye-witnessed and wrote about is refuted in one moment because of your self-indulgence of superior intellect. |
Oh I see, so everyone who eye-witnessed a given event, regardless of their religion or culture, are therefore right?
Hmmm, how much further down the road of absurdity are you willing to travel?
How can everyone be right about a given event? I thought Christians believe their version of events were correct. Now you're telling me that other religions and cultures were correct instead?
How many different parallel universes do you live in? |
|
|
|
|
