Everything is ordered or disordered depending on how you look at it. Except maybe math.
Yes. Oil is more ordered energy than the organisms that it came from. But less ordered life. But the degree of ordered/disordered is objective as soon as you have decided what kind of yardstick you are gonna use.[/quick shot]
Nope, pretty sure gravity applies universally as far as we can observe...and test, which is more than I can say for evolution. link
You have a real big misunderstanding of what a 'law' is. Not to mention that einstein's theory of relativity showed that newton's theory wasn't actually accurate. And maybe einstein's wrong. But, yeah, there's a whole lot of evidence that backs it up, just like there is with evolution.
The problem with creationism is that as long as another theory surrounding the origins of life (such as evolution) exists and has substantial evidence to back it, creationism loses all validity. Only in the absence of credible theory does creationism stand a chance. Creationist thinking seems to be that if you prove evolution wrong then by default creationism MUST be true.
The onus is not on me to do that. I would prefer to ask the question: why does science exclude the possibility of the existence of data which falls outside its canon ?
Personally I would answer in this way: science has become a kind of religion with dogma that cannot be questioned.
You realise that this is how science has always worked, right? That's what all that chat about 'paradigms' is all about. You ignore (or even fudge) the data that doesn't fit into your theory because, without a theory to structure your data you've got nothing. It's only after you've got enough outliers and anomolies that you can start thinking about coming up with a new and better theory that explains everything the old one did, plus a bit more. And that doesn't mean that 'science' (meaning actual scientists who have invested in the old paradigm) are going to like it.
Planck's Principle: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck
There's plenty of geniuses who died before their breakthrough was appreciated. There's also plenty more cranks who would rather complain about being kept out of mainstream science than provide adequate proof of their claims.
And yes, with all it's warts, science has been a great deal more reliable than any of the crack-addled interpretations of old books have been.
I would prefer to ask the question: why does science exclude the possibility of the existence of data which falls outside its canon ?
It doesn't. To be sure there are conservative and dogmatic scientists out there, but if one has supporting data, capable of surviving scrutiny, then science can't ignore it.
Quote:
Personally I would answer in this way: science has become a kind of religion with dogma that cannot be questioned. What you have done in your reply is to dismiss Cremo - not evaluate the evidence.
...
I am not qualified to argue for or against Cremo's evidence. I would expect instead that more qualified workers in that field would do that. Sadly, that is not the case.
Cremo proposes that humanity, as seen in its present form, is millions of years old. Does he show any evidence for this? Not really. What he does is take controversial archeological finds and takes the fantastical interpretation.
Here's an example. The Laetoli footprints? Cremo cites Tuttle saying they are too human-like to be australopithecene foot prints, and that implies that homo sapiens were alive that far back in time. The foot prints indicate beings 4 feet and 4 feet 10 inches tall through their foot size and stride. That's a strange homo to be walking around making footprints when there are tens of thousands of australopithecenes walking around who are 4 to 5 feet tall. He also fails to mention the other paleotonologists who say the foot prints are from australopithecenes.
Cremo's theory is really simple to support. He just needs to find a homo sapien fossil older than 5 million years. When the evidence starts appearing, scientific theory and canon will change to support the new evidence. Right now, he doesn't seem to have anything.
Quote:
Nevertheless, you cannot hold back the tide forever and other fields are also turning up evidence. Although it is hardly more progressive, Egyptology has recently turned up several key issues which point to the existence of modern man far earlier than the orthodoxy maintains.
...
Schoch in particular on his groundbreaking redating of the Sphinx in the light of water erosion has pushed back the date of that monument 10,000 years.
Of course his evidence has been ignored and he himself has been lambasted, maligned and generally ignored.
I'm not holding back any tide. Just waiting for the data to arrive. If this dude has evidence, he can present it for scrutiny. It's easier than ever with the Internet. So, do you have a link? I'd like to see it. It's not too often one sees something that turns scientific canon.
More disorder is created than order. Life isn't special. Without life, bonds hold together earth and in the creation of those bonds the universe becomes more disorderly. We are nothing but of the universe.
I posted earlier that more disorder is created than order.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Living systems use high-quality energy, not disorder, to make two things: internal order where the living systems need it, and greater external disorder in the form of waste heat.
Again, we are saying the same thing. Life is special, however, because it can take unordered compounds and build massive macromolecules. Everything else you say is absolutely true.
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
The entire set of talking points for creationists is to sow the seeds of doubt about evolution.
And the entire set of talking points for naturalists is to call creationists "stupid".
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Everything is ordered or disordered depending on how you look at it
You are partially right. However, few would look at a rolex and say that it is a disordered object. Interestingly, there is little research into exactly how humans recognize order. There is very little motivation on the naturalists side, because they believe everything came from random processes. However, William Dembski, an intelligent design mathematician, has published several works on what he calls an "intellegence filter". The concepts involved are quite interesting, but I think it still needs a little work. For those of you who are interested in A.I., this would be a key step, I believe, as the basic precepts involved would allow an intellegence to distinguish between random background noise and actually meaningful data.
Quote:
Originally posted by anders
...Oil is more ordered energy than the organisms that it came from. But less ordered life. But the degree of ordered/disordered is objective as soon as you have decided what kind of yardstick you are gonna use.
No, oil is a dense form of energy, not more ordered. It's also not alive. As for the yardstick, see the above statements.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
You have a real big misunderstanding of what a 'law' is. Not to mention that einstein's theory of relativity showed that newton's theory wasn't actually accurate. And maybe einstein's wrong. But, yeah, there's a whole lot of evidence that backs it up, just like there is with evolution.
Google has an excellent definition of scientific law here
Notice the emphasis consistently placed on observability of a process. Creationists never talk about the "law" of creationism, but naturalists are always talking about the "fact" or "law" of evolution.
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Can I ask benzene what he actually believes?
Sure, but I won't explain in detail why I believe each one, as I have already stated my fundamental beliefs earlier.
* Age of the Earth?
Don't know for sure. Lots of conflicting evidence floating around that I haven't had the time to sort through. Currently, less that 10k years.
* Does micro-evolution occur?
* Does macro-evolution occur?
Well, no strict defintion of these two terms has been decided on by either side, although I kind of like these: macro, micro
Based upon those definitions, I would say that microevolution has been shown to take place, whereas macroevolution has been merely postulated (as an extension of microevolution).
* Did dinosaurs ever roam the earth?
Absolutely.
* Are humans descended from apes?
No.
* First human lived when?
See "age of the earth".
* Did they have a belly button?
Lol...I don't know.
I know what you're getting at. I'm a young-earth creationist who believes that all organisms possess an ability (some more extensive than others) to adapt to their environments and undergo a certain amount of genetic change.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ra
The problem with creationism is that as long as another theory surrounding the origins of life (such as evolution) exists and has substantial evidence to back it, creationism loses all validity. Only in the absence of credible theory does creationism stand a chance. Creationist thinking seems to be that if you prove evolution wrong then by default creationism MUST be true.
As I have been saying for several posts, purely naturalistic mechanisms are utterly unable to explain the orgin of life. Since as I have also stated before, it's an A or B choice, which leaves one to look for an explanation other than naturalism.
As for subsequent posts, I will sum up with the statement (as a card-carrying scientist), that science is all about applying the evidence to theory. If the evidence does not fit, there are two possibilities, not one:
1) You are generating/interpreting/applying the data incorrectly
2) Your hypothesis needs reworking (or outright falsification).
That's what I think segovius is trying to say, is that (for a trivial example) if you are trying to measure the speed of a bullet, but your instruments' maximum readout is 5m/s, all of your data will fit the hypothesis if it is "all bullets go 5m/s" (even though it is grossly incorrect).
Except that sedimentary proof a worldwide asteroid strike that supposedly killed all the dinosaurs has never been found...and evolutionists still bicker about what exactly DID kill all of them...
This is incorrect. It has. It was all over the news. Iridium deposits ahoy. Google for a 180-kilometer diameter ring structure centered on the present coastline of the Gulf of Mexico and several hundred metres of sedimentary deposits and the word 'Chicxulub'. Magnetic anomolies suggesting a huge crater measureable from space. For heaven's sake.
Next.
Gravity is a theory. Like evolution. You are arguing, it appears, and depressingly predictably so, from a position of ignorance about the scientific term 'theory'. Justgoto someUniversity websitesor do somefrigging Googling. Gravity exists. We can see it. The planet is ancient. We can see it. We haven't yet been able to measure the causes of gravity. It is a theory.
Gravity doesn't happen. We don't understand it. It's only a theory.
I beg you. Please find out the truth for yourself. Get your nose out of that Book and look at how awesome the universe is.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Hmm. Seems like you're leaving out biology, chemistry, and physics. I though evolution was equally supported on all fronts. A little too factual perhaps?
I'm not afraid of facts, you see. And I still have to see you present one single piece of evidence so important that the sum total of the last century's research in these fields has to be counted out en masse.
There is a Nobel Prize in it for you.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Abdominal hernias, lactose intolerance and lupus are all diseases.
No. They are not. Only lupus is a disease. All of these conditions result from genetic predispositions and are what we could call 'design flaws.'
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Hmm...last I checked, paleontology dated strata by the fossils they found in them, and then dated the fossils by the strata. A bit of circular reasoning perhaps?
The last time you checked you were completely, utterly, lost-an-argument-on-the-internet-by-ignorance-of-the-facts wrong. Strata are dated by an estimate of the time it would take for immense pressures to petrify organic sediments, their geographical location, their depth, a calculation of the immense time it would take for vulcanisation to cover ancient heathers, for a sea to cross all of it laying down the organisms that become limestone, for silts to cover that, for more vulcanisation to cover that, for a tectonic plate to crash into it and push the fossils of extinct tropical palms into the Arctic, the pertaining environmental conditions of the time they were laid down (cross-checked across entire continents) and the immense time it would take for immense pressures to transmute igneous rocks, stuff like that.
Next.
The Chauvet caves. I pointed out the depth of virgin mineral deposits, the bones of extinct species and pollen in the cave. I could have added the glacially-sealed cave entrance, marine artifacts discovered inside, heaven knows what else. You decided to settle on the carbon dating, as if that would make all of the other evidence for the painting's immense age redundant. I should have remembered: never, ever mention carbon dating when you're debating with someone who believes that the planet is 10,000 years old (I can't believe I'm writing this.)
Next.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
But you did confirm that my statement about microlayers at mt. st. helens was correct
Shiver.
No, I didn't. I was just grateful you presented an example in nature at last to back up your argument.
So, it seems that there's some striations on Mt St Helens that apparently formed very quickly, making all of glacial science redundant and proving that (I don't know) glaciation never happened and that the world is very young.
Except it turns out that your example is nonsense.
Quote:
[At...] Mount St. Helens: a 7.6 meter (25 feet) thick pyroclastic "flow" (and/or pyroclastic surge?, Carey, 1991; Walker and McBroome, 1983; Hoblitt and Miller, 1984; Waitt, 1984; Walker and Morgan, 1984) was deposited in only a few hours. The deposit was documented and photographed by YEC Steve Austin. In his "Sedimentation Experiments" article, Snelling describes the 7.6 meter thick pyroclastic deposit as having "thin laminae" of fine and coarse ash with some cross-bedding. Sarfati and Snelling use this example to loudly proclaim that YEC Austin has made an important discovery at Mount St. Helens, that is, laminar- and cross-beds can form rapidly.
Before Sarfati and other YECs further proclaim Austin's "discovery" of rapidly developing laminae and cross-bedding, they should look at the literature and learn some geology. For decades, geologists have known that cross-bedding and laminae can form in rapidly deposited pyroclastics (especially surges) (Fisher and Schmincke, 1984, p. 107-115, 191, 192, 198-206, 247-256; Schmincke et al., 1973; Carey, 1991). For example, Schmincke et al. (1973) discussed the presence of laminar- and cross-bedding in a pyroclastic deposit at Laacher See, Germany. Many of the features seen in pyroclastics, such as cross-bedding, antidunes and laminar features, resemble those seen in "Bouma sequences," which typically form in natural catastrophic turbidite flows (Schmincke et al., 1973; Fisher and Schmincke, 1984, p. 107-115). Bouma developed his sequence way back in 1962 and he knew that the laminar bedding in the sequences were the result of rapid flows (Bouma, 1962). At the same time, laminae and cross-beds may also form slowly in quiet, gradually changing environments (Blatt et al., 1980, p. 133-135).
Clearly, Austin's pyroclastic deposit at Mount St. Helens is not something new to geologists. It's just another pyroclastic deposit with ordinary laminar- and cross-beds.
You can Google for the terms yourself and the citations yourself.
Why does there need to be an intelligence to any of this? Do we not understand yet that you can toss a coin and some fraction of the time it will land on its edge?
All of this talk of intelligent design assumes Life with a capital L is special. It isn't. It isn't perfect. It doesn't operate outside the properties of the universe. Fundamentally it isn't different than the reactions I run in benzene (heh heh).
Also: Why would a deity care if us peons believe in it? The argument that a deity shows no evidence of its existence for the purpose of generating faith is utterly and totally against everything mentioned in the Old and New Testaments where the hand of God is quite obvious from floating fires to manna from heaven. The worse thing you can do for your argument is to say it is unprovable. And those who support the intelligent design theory start with that proposition.
Hold on ! Intelligent design through the medium of a form of an evolution that is not the current one espoused by the orthodoxy if you don't mind
Stop the bus. You can't just make up your own theory and call it Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a quite specific recasting of Creationism so that it can attempt to pass as science rather than religion and hence get into school science textbooks.
That's like arguing with an athiest and saying "I'm a catholic, and I worship the little green pope that lives in the pond at the bottom of my garden", you're just looking for trouble from both sides.
If on the other hand you say "we'll *my* religion is *like* Catholicism but with frogs" then you'll be fine.
Again I feel the need to ask what you believe, as it really isn't clear. I'm picking up two trends:
* life is too complicated to not be designed
* random chance can't make complicated things
I honestly feel that you're missing the point if your objections are at such a low level. Richard Dawkins has a book addressing each "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" (and is also guaranteed to annoy religious types with his athiest activism).
You interpretation of the monkey-shakespeare thing is so far off base I don't know where to start (though try the Mount Improbable book if you can stomach it).
But the fact that the mechanisms involved (random chance and selection) have been shown to work in labratory conditions evolving software etc. means you have to raise your game a little if you want to dismiss it in the specific case of the evolution of humans (or living things in general).
This is the theory of an infinite number of monkeys randomly bashing on an infinite number of typewriters for eternity would write the works of Shakespeare.
This may be true but what it neglects to address is that they would also half-write them, write them in all possible forms with all possible endings and write every other possible work of fiction as well.
We see no such correlation. The metaphor as it is suggests that the infinite monkeys with their infinite typewriters came up with one work in all of eternity and only one: a perfect Shakespeare.
Not a half written one, not all the variations with all possible mistakes - one and one only.
That's where it falls down.
No actually... Where is there evidence that all combinations haven't been tried? In fact, we have loads of evidence of failed species, mutations that cause deformations, so the analogy is quite perfect...
We see no such correlation. The metaphor as it is suggests that the infinite monkeys with their infinite typewriters came up with one work in all of eternity and only one: a perfect Shakespeare.
Not a half written one, not all the variations with all possible mistakes - one and one only.
That's where it falls down.
Well, hardeeharhar already pointed it out, but since you seem to miss my point when I said you were off base and instead acted like it was some kind of popularity contest rather than you just being wrong, I'll mention it again.
No-one, except you, thinks that evolution is supposed to have produced only a single perfect 'shakespeare'. And that is where it all falls down.
I'm frightened that you can have read a Dawkin's book, even if you hated it, and still not understood that basic part of the theory you're trying to discount. Maybe if you understood it, you'd find you liked it?
God is an invention of human society. From everything we can tell about the history of human society, monotheism was invented about 5000 years ago. Prior to this (and to this day), people believed in any number of theories about the way the world was created all of which are based upon religious edicts and dogma and none of which accept challenges from evidenciary based analyses. We have, in the last 250 years, had a systematic exploration of the properties of life and its ability to survive and adapt. In no time prior to the last 250 years has such an exploration been undertaken. From every bit of evidence gathered, there exists a theory which is adaptable to new insights and evidence. This theory runs contrary to almost everything said in the dogmas of old, we admit that, but that is because the dogmas of old are wrong (and even they are self-contradictory). It isn't as if the argument over a creation story wouldn't exist if science hadn't sparked a supreme interest in the intellectuals of the enlightenment. The reason why a scientific view of evolution is so threatening is because it can explain a great deal more than any of the other theories out there and it denies the need (but not the existence) of a deity.
Be not afraid. The understandings and misunderstandings you attribute to me exist only in your mind.
I didn't dislike the books as such. They even have some useful insights.
It's Dawkins I can't stand, most notably in his incarnation as 'authority figure representing a monolithic institution that cannot be questioned and which stultifies the life out of free ranges of creative thought'.
While I say "right on Segovious, that's some good shit to disagree with", I have to disagree with your description of Dawkins. I've always found him kinda full of wonder and imagination. I find him inspiring.
I read this correspondence between him and some creationist where the creationist said "Well, you say there's absolutely no point for us to be here; we're just accidental cocktails of reacting chemicals, quickly decaying. That's really depressing." Dawkins responded by something like "Yes, there's absolutely no 'point' in us being here but your presence can still mean something. The 'point' might as well be finding out as much as you can?because it's amazing that you can?and doing the best you can for the people around you."
It's sort of liberating, no? There's no reason for me to be here. Fuck it, I'm going to try and make beautiful things.
Well I see Benzene is ignoring all my questions, so I take it that my questions are a real good way to piss of a creationist. And the reason he's pissed off, is because I have hit the nail squarely on the head.
One more time Benzene.
Exactly how does disproving the theory of Evolution make your theory correct?
What did God say when you asked him what the biological mechanism was that prevented information being added to the genome?
What did God say when you asked him if the catholic church had forged the references to Jesus in Josephus' work?
What did God say when you asked him if the theory of Evolution was the best explaination of how mankind got here?
Perhaps you can't answer because God is ignoring you?
More likely you didn't like the answers God gave you
Exactly how does disproving the theory of Evolution make your theory correct?
Here is your answer:
Quote:
The problem with creationism is that as long as another theory surrounding the origins of life (such as evolution) exists and has substantial evidence to back it, creationism loses all validity. Only in the absence of credible theory does creationism stand a chance. Creationist thinking seems to be that if you prove evolution wrong then by default creationism MUST be true.
Sure, but I won't explain in detail why I believe each one, as I have already stated my fundamental beliefs earlier.
* Age of the Earth?
Don't know for sure. Lots of conflicting evidence floating around that I haven't had the time to sort through. Currently, less that 10k years.
* Does micro-evolution occur?
* Does macro-evolution occur?
Well, no strict defintion of these two terms has been decided on by either side, although I kind of like these: macro, micro
Based upon those definitions, I would say that microevolution has been shown to take place, whereas macroevolution has been merely postulated (as an extension of microevolution).
* Did dinosaurs ever roam the earth?
Absolutely.
* Are humans descended from apes?
No.
* First human lived when?
See "age of the earth".
* Did they have a belly button?
Lol...I don't know.
I'm a young-earth creationist ...
.
Yet when I [correcty] assumed all these thing you replied with
Quote:
Whoa Whoa Whoa!
I don't know what you've been smoking, but I said:
quote:Originally posted by benzene
Either we came about by chance, or something made us.
The literality of the Bible is a whole 'nother can of worms.
THAT TELLS ME that you are intentionally lying, deceiving, wriggling and squirming as much as you think you can get away with.
I used to have a sig that went. "NO-ONE PICKS A FIGHT WITH MarcUK and WINS"
YOU JUST LOST BIG TIME My friend. Lying for God. EXPOSED. CHEATING, FRAUD.
IF YOU HAVE TO TELLS LIES, IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Everything is ordered or disordered depending on how you look at it. Except maybe math.
Yes. Oil is more ordered energy than the organisms that it came from. But less ordered life. But the degree of ordered/disordered is objective as soon as you have decided what kind of yardstick you are gonna use.[/quick shot]
Originally posted by benzene
Nope, pretty sure gravity applies universally as far as we can observe...and test, which is more than I can say for evolution. link
You have a real big misunderstanding of what a 'law' is. Not to mention that einstein's theory of relativity showed that newton's theory wasn't actually accurate. And maybe einstein's wrong. But, yeah, there's a whole lot of evidence that backs it up, just like there is with evolution.
* Age of the Earth?
* Does micro-evolution occur?
* Does macro-evolution occur?
* Did dinosaurs ever roam the earth?
* Are humans descended from apes?
* First human lived when?
* Did they have a belly button?
Originally posted by segovius
The onus is not on me to do that. I would prefer to ask the question: why does science exclude the possibility of the existence of data which falls outside its canon ?
Personally I would answer in this way: science has become a kind of religion with dogma that cannot be questioned.
You realise that this is how science has always worked, right? That's what all that chat about 'paradigms' is all about. You ignore (or even fudge) the data that doesn't fit into your theory because, without a theory to structure your data you've got nothing. It's only after you've got enough outliers and anomolies that you can start thinking about coming up with a new and better theory that explains everything the old one did, plus a bit more. And that doesn't mean that 'science' (meaning actual scientists who have invested in the old paradigm) are going to like it.
Planck's Principle: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck
There's plenty of geniuses who died before their breakthrough was appreciated. There's also plenty more cranks who would rather complain about being kept out of mainstream science than provide adequate proof of their claims.
And yes, with all it's warts, science has been a great deal more reliable than any of the crack-addled interpretations of old books have been.
Originally posted by segovius
The onus is not on me to do that.
Great. Wonderful. At least provide some examples.
I would prefer to ask the question: why does science exclude the possibility of the existence of data which falls outside its canon ?
It doesn't. To be sure there are conservative and dogmatic scientists out there, but if one has supporting data, capable of surviving scrutiny, then science can't ignore it.
Personally I would answer in this way: science has become a kind of religion with dogma that cannot be questioned. What you have done in your reply is to dismiss Cremo - not evaluate the evidence.
...
I am not qualified to argue for or against Cremo's evidence. I would expect instead that more qualified workers in that field would do that. Sadly, that is not the case.
Cremo proposes that humanity, as seen in its present form, is millions of years old. Does he show any evidence for this? Not really. What he does is take controversial archeological finds and takes the fantastical interpretation.
Here's an example. The Laetoli footprints? Cremo cites Tuttle saying they are too human-like to be australopithecene foot prints, and that implies that homo sapiens were alive that far back in time. The foot prints indicate beings 4 feet and 4 feet 10 inches tall through their foot size and stride. That's a strange homo to be walking around making footprints when there are tens of thousands of australopithecenes walking around who are 4 to 5 feet tall. He also fails to mention the other paleotonologists who say the foot prints are from australopithecenes.
Cremo's theory is really simple to support. He just needs to find a homo sapien fossil older than 5 million years. When the evidence starts appearing, scientific theory and canon will change to support the new evidence. Right now, he doesn't seem to have anything.
Nevertheless, you cannot hold back the tide forever and other fields are also turning up evidence. Although it is hardly more progressive, Egyptology has recently turned up several key issues which point to the existence of modern man far earlier than the orthodoxy maintains.
...
Schoch in particular on his groundbreaking redating of the Sphinx in the light of water erosion has pushed back the date of that monument 10,000 years.
Of course his evidence has been ignored and he himself has been lambasted, maligned and generally ignored.
I'm not holding back any tide. Just waiting for the data to arrive. If this dude has evidence, he can present it for scrutiny. It's easier than ever with the Internet. So, do you have a link? I'd like to see it. It's not too often one sees something that turns scientific canon.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
More disorder is created than order. Life isn't special. Without life, bonds hold together earth and in the creation of those bonds the universe becomes more disorderly. We are nothing but of the universe.
I posted earlier that more disorder is created than order.
Originally posted by benzene
Living systems use high-quality energy, not disorder, to make two things: internal order where the living systems need it, and greater external disorder in the form of waste heat.
Again, we are saying the same thing. Life is special, however, because it can take unordered compounds and build massive macromolecules. Everything else you say is absolutely true.
Originally posted by THT
The entire set of talking points for creationists is to sow the seeds of doubt about evolution.
And the entire set of talking points for naturalists is to call creationists "stupid".
Originally posted by giant
Everything is ordered or disordered depending on how you look at it
You are partially right. However, few would look at a rolex and say that it is a disordered object. Interestingly, there is little research into exactly how humans recognize order. There is very little motivation on the naturalists side, because they believe everything came from random processes. However, William Dembski, an intelligent design mathematician, has published several works on what he calls an "intellegence filter". The concepts involved are quite interesting, but I think it still needs a little work. For those of you who are interested in A.I., this would be a key step, I believe, as the basic precepts involved would allow an intellegence to distinguish between random background noise and actually meaningful data.
Originally posted by anders
...Oil is more ordered energy than the organisms that it came from. But less ordered life. But the degree of ordered/disordered is objective as soon as you have decided what kind of yardstick you are gonna use.
No, oil is a dense form of energy, not more ordered. It's also not alive. As for the yardstick, see the above statements.
Originally posted by giant
You have a real big misunderstanding of what a 'law' is. Not to mention that einstein's theory of relativity showed that newton's theory wasn't actually accurate. And maybe einstein's wrong. But, yeah, there's a whole lot of evidence that backs it up, just like there is with evolution.
Google has an excellent definition of scientific law here
Notice the emphasis consistently placed on observability of a process. Creationists never talk about the "law" of creationism, but naturalists are always talking about the "fact" or "law" of evolution.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Can I ask benzene what he actually believes?
Sure, but I won't explain in detail why I believe each one, as I have already stated my fundamental beliefs earlier.
* Age of the Earth?
Don't know for sure. Lots of conflicting evidence floating around that I haven't had the time to sort through. Currently, less that 10k years.
* Does micro-evolution occur?
* Does macro-evolution occur?
Well, no strict defintion of these two terms has been decided on by either side, although I kind of like these: macro, micro
Based upon those definitions, I would say that microevolution has been shown to take place, whereas macroevolution has been merely postulated (as an extension of microevolution).
* Did dinosaurs ever roam the earth?
Absolutely.
* Are humans descended from apes?
No.
* First human lived when?
See "age of the earth".
* Did they have a belly button?
Lol...I don't know.
I know what you're getting at. I'm a young-earth creationist who believes that all organisms possess an ability (some more extensive than others) to adapt to their environments and undergo a certain amount of genetic change.
Originally posted by Ra
The problem with creationism is that as long as another theory surrounding the origins of life (such as evolution) exists and has substantial evidence to back it, creationism loses all validity. Only in the absence of credible theory does creationism stand a chance. Creationist thinking seems to be that if you prove evolution wrong then by default creationism MUST be true.
As I have been saying for several posts, purely naturalistic mechanisms are utterly unable to explain the orgin of life. Since as I have also stated before, it's an A or B choice, which leaves one to look for an explanation other than naturalism.
As for subsequent posts, I will sum up with the statement (as a card-carrying scientist), that science is all about applying the evidence to theory. If the evidence does not fit, there are two possibilities, not one:
1) You are generating/interpreting/applying the data incorrectly
2) Your hypothesis needs reworking (or outright falsification).
That's what I think segovius is trying to say, is that (for a trivial example) if you are trying to measure the speed of a bullet, but your instruments' maximum readout is 5m/s, all of your data will fit the hypothesis if it is "all bullets go 5m/s" (even though it is grossly incorrect).
Originally posted by benzene
* Age of the Earth?
Don't know for sure. Lots of conflicting evidence floating around that I haven't had the time to sort through. Currently, less that 10k years.
[snip]
* Did dinosaurs ever roam the earth?
Absolutely.
[snip]
* First human lived when?
See "age of the earth".
(italics mine)
So... you believe humans lived right alongside the dinosaurs? And yet they didn't tear us all to pieces?
Originally posted by benzene
Except that sedimentary proof a worldwide asteroid strike that supposedly killed all the dinosaurs has never been found...and evolutionists still bicker about what exactly DID kill all of them...
This is incorrect. It has. It was all over the news. Iridium deposits ahoy. Google for a 180-kilometer diameter ring structure centered on the present coastline of the Gulf of Mexico and several hundred metres of sedimentary deposits and the word 'Chicxulub'. Magnetic anomolies suggesting a huge crater measureable from space. For heaven's sake.
Next.
Gravity is a theory. Like evolution. You are arguing, it appears, and depressingly predictably so, from a position of ignorance about the scientific term 'theory'. Just go to some University websites or do some frigging Googling. Gravity exists. We can see it. The planet is ancient. We can see it. We haven't yet been able to measure the causes of gravity. It is a theory.
Gravity doesn't happen. We don't understand it. It's only a theory.
I beg you. Please find out the truth for yourself. Get your nose out of that Book and look at how awesome the universe is.
Originally posted by benzene
Hmm. Seems like you're leaving out biology, chemistry, and physics. I though evolution was equally supported on all fronts. A little too factual perhaps?
I'm not afraid of facts, you see. And I still have to see you present one single piece of evidence so important that the sum total of the last century's research in these fields has to be counted out en masse.
There is a Nobel Prize in it for you.
Originally posted by benzene
Abdominal hernias, lactose intolerance and lupus are all diseases.
No. They are not. Only lupus is a disease. All of these conditions result from genetic predispositions and are what we could call 'design flaws.'
Originally posted by benzene
Hmm...last I checked, paleontology dated strata by the fossils they found in them, and then dated the fossils by the strata. A bit of circular reasoning perhaps?
The last time you checked you were completely, utterly, lost-an-argument-on-the-internet-by-ignorance-of-the-facts wrong. Strata are dated by an estimate of the time it would take for immense pressures to petrify organic sediments, their geographical location, their depth, a calculation of the immense time it would take for vulcanisation to cover ancient heathers, for a sea to cross all of it laying down the organisms that become limestone, for silts to cover that, for more vulcanisation to cover that, for a tectonic plate to crash into it and push the fossils of extinct tropical palms into the Arctic, the pertaining environmental conditions of the time they were laid down (cross-checked across entire continents) and the immense time it would take for immense pressures to transmute igneous rocks, stuff like that.
Next.
The Chauvet caves. I pointed out the depth of virgin mineral deposits, the bones of extinct species and pollen in the cave. I could have added the glacially-sealed cave entrance, marine artifacts discovered inside, heaven knows what else. You decided to settle on the carbon dating, as if that would make all of the other evidence for the painting's immense age redundant. I should have remembered: never, ever mention carbon dating when you're debating with someone who believes that the planet is 10,000 years old (I can't believe I'm writing this.)
Next.
Originally posted by benzene
But you did confirm that my statement about microlayers at mt. st. helens was correct
Shiver.
No, I didn't. I was just grateful you presented an example in nature at last to back up your argument.
So, it seems that there's some striations on Mt St Helens that apparently formed very quickly, making all of glacial science redundant and proving that (I don't know) glaciation never happened and that the world is very young.
Except it turns out that your example is nonsense.
[At...] Mount St. Helens: a 7.6 meter (25 feet) thick pyroclastic "flow" (and/or pyroclastic surge?, Carey, 1991; Walker and McBroome, 1983; Hoblitt and Miller, 1984; Waitt, 1984; Walker and Morgan, 1984) was deposited in only a few hours. The deposit was documented and photographed by YEC Steve Austin. In his "Sedimentation Experiments" article, Snelling describes the 7.6 meter thick pyroclastic deposit as having "thin laminae" of fine and coarse ash with some cross-bedding. Sarfati and Snelling use this example to loudly proclaim that YEC Austin has made an important discovery at Mount St. Helens, that is, laminar- and cross-beds can form rapidly.
Before Sarfati and other YECs further proclaim Austin's "discovery" of rapidly developing laminae and cross-bedding, they should look at the literature and learn some geology. For decades, geologists have known that cross-bedding and laminae can form in rapidly deposited pyroclastics (especially surges) (Fisher and Schmincke, 1984, p. 107-115, 191, 192, 198-206, 247-256; Schmincke et al., 1973; Carey, 1991). For example, Schmincke et al. (1973) discussed the presence of laminar- and cross-bedding in a pyroclastic deposit at Laacher See, Germany. Many of the features seen in pyroclastics, such as cross-bedding, antidunes and laminar features, resemble those seen in "Bouma sequences," which typically form in natural catastrophic turbidite flows (Schmincke et al., 1973; Fisher and Schmincke, 1984, p. 107-115). Bouma developed his sequence way back in 1962 and he knew that the laminar bedding in the sequences were the result of rapid flows (Bouma, 1962). At the same time, laminae and cross-beds may also form slowly in quiet, gradually changing environments (Blatt et al., 1980, p. 133-135).
Clearly, Austin's pyroclastic deposit at Mount St. Helens is not something new to geologists. It's just another pyroclastic deposit with ordinary laminar- and cross-beds.
You can Google for the terms yourself and the citations yourself.
All of this talk of intelligent design assumes Life with a capital L is special. It isn't. It isn't perfect. It doesn't operate outside the properties of the universe. Fundamentally it isn't different than the reactions I run in benzene (heh heh).
Also: Why would a deity care if us peons believe in it? The argument that a deity shows no evidence of its existence for the purpose of generating faith is utterly and totally against everything mentioned in the Old and New Testaments where the hand of God is quite obvious from floating fires to manna from heaven. The worse thing you can do for your argument is to say it is unprovable. And those who support the intelligent design theory start with that proposition.
Originally posted by segovius
Hold on ! Intelligent design through the medium of a form of an evolution that is not the current one espoused by the orthodoxy if you don't mind
Stop the bus. You can't just make up your own theory and call it Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a quite specific recasting of Creationism so that it can attempt to pass as science rather than religion and hence get into school science textbooks.
That's like arguing with an athiest and saying "I'm a catholic, and I worship the little green pope that lives in the pond at the bottom of my garden", you're just looking for trouble from both sides.
If on the other hand you say "we'll *my* religion is *like* Catholicism but with frogs" then you'll be fine.
Again I feel the need to ask what you believe, as it really isn't clear. I'm picking up two trends:
* life is too complicated to not be designed
* random chance can't make complicated things
I honestly feel that you're missing the point if your objections are at such a low level. Richard Dawkins has a book addressing each "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" (and is also guaranteed to annoy religious types with his athiest activism).
You interpretation of the monkey-shakespeare thing is so far off base I don't know where to start (though try the Mount Improbable book if you can stomach it).
But the fact that the mechanisms involved (random chance and selection) have been shown to work in labratory conditions evolving software etc. means you have to raise your game a little if you want to dismiss it in the specific case of the evolution of humans (or living things in general).
Originally posted by segovius
This is the theory of an infinite number of monkeys randomly bashing on an infinite number of typewriters for eternity would write the works of Shakespeare.
This may be true but what it neglects to address is that they would also half-write them, write them in all possible forms with all possible endings and write every other possible work of fiction as well.
We see no such correlation. The metaphor as it is suggests that the infinite monkeys with their infinite typewriters came up with one work in all of eternity and only one: a perfect Shakespeare.
Not a half written one, not all the variations with all possible mistakes - one and one only.
That's where it falls down.
No actually... Where is there evidence that all combinations haven't been tried? In fact, we have loads of evidence of failed species, mutations that cause deformations, so the analogy is quite perfect...
Originally posted by segovius
We see no such correlation. The metaphor as it is suggests that the infinite monkeys with their infinite typewriters came up with one work in all of eternity and only one: a perfect Shakespeare.
Not a half written one, not all the variations with all possible mistakes - one and one only.
That's where it falls down.
Well, hardeeharhar already pointed it out, but since you seem to miss my point when I said you were off base and instead acted like it was some kind of popularity contest rather than you just being wrong, I'll mention it again.
No-one, except you, thinks that evolution is supposed to have produced only a single perfect 'shakespeare'. And that is where it all falls down.
I'm frightened that you can have read a Dawkin's book, even if you hated it, and still not understood that basic part of the theory you're trying to discount. Maybe if you understood it, you'd find you liked it?
God is an invention of human society. From everything we can tell about the history of human society, monotheism was invented about 5000 years ago. Prior to this (and to this day), people believed in any number of theories about the way the world was created all of which are based upon religious edicts and dogma and none of which accept challenges from evidenciary based analyses. We have, in the last 250 years, had a systematic exploration of the properties of life and its ability to survive and adapt. In no time prior to the last 250 years has such an exploration been undertaken. From every bit of evidence gathered, there exists a theory which is adaptable to new insights and evidence. This theory runs contrary to almost everything said in the dogmas of old, we admit that, but that is because the dogmas of old are wrong (and even they are self-contradictory). It isn't as if the argument over a creation story wouldn't exist if science hadn't sparked a supreme interest in the intellectuals of the enlightenment. The reason why a scientific view of evolution is so threatening is because it can explain a great deal more than any of the other theories out there and it denies the need (but not the existence) of a deity.
Originally posted by segovius
Be not afraid. The understandings and misunderstandings you attribute to me exist only in your mind.
I didn't dislike the books as such. They even have some useful insights.
It's Dawkins I can't stand, most notably in his incarnation as 'authority figure representing a monolithic institution that cannot be questioned and which stultifies the life out of free ranges of creative thought'.
While I say "right on Segovious, that's some good shit to disagree with", I have to disagree with your description of Dawkins. I've always found him kinda full of wonder and imagination. I find him inspiring.
I read this correspondence between him and some creationist where the creationist said "Well, you say there's absolutely no point for us to be here; we're just accidental cocktails of reacting chemicals, quickly decaying. That's really depressing." Dawkins responded by something like "Yes, there's absolutely no 'point' in us being here but your presence can still mean something. The 'point' might as well be finding out as much as you can?because it's amazing that you can?and doing the best you can for the people around you."
It's sort of liberating, no? There's no reason for me to be here. Fuck it, I'm going to try and make beautiful things.
One more time Benzene.
Exactly how does disproving the theory of Evolution make your theory correct?
What did God say when you asked him what the biological mechanism was that prevented information being added to the genome?
What did God say when you asked him if the catholic church had forged the references to Jesus in Josephus' work?
What did God say when you asked him if the theory of Evolution was the best explaination of how mankind got here?
Perhaps you can't answer because God is ignoring you?
More likely you didn't like the answers God gave you
Originally posted by MarcUK
One more time Benzene.
Exactly how does disproving the theory of Evolution make your theory correct?
Here is your answer:
The problem with creationism is that as long as another theory surrounding the origins of life (such as evolution) exists and has substantial evidence to back it, creationism loses all validity. Only in the absence of credible theory does creationism stand a chance. Creationist thinking seems to be that if you prove evolution wrong then by default creationism MUST be true.
Originally posted by Ra
Here is your answer:
Creationist thinking seems to be that if you prove evolution wrong then by default creationism MUST be true.
Like I originally said,
the deceived, and the deceivers.
Originally posted by benzene
Sure, but I won't explain in detail why I believe each one, as I have already stated my fundamental beliefs earlier.
* Age of the Earth?
Don't know for sure. Lots of conflicting evidence floating around that I haven't had the time to sort through. Currently, less that 10k years.
* Does micro-evolution occur?
* Does macro-evolution occur?
Well, no strict defintion of these two terms has been decided on by either side, although I kind of like these: macro, micro
Based upon those definitions, I would say that microevolution has been shown to take place, whereas macroevolution has been merely postulated (as an extension of microevolution).
* Did dinosaurs ever roam the earth?
Absolutely.
* Are humans descended from apes?
No.
* First human lived when?
See "age of the earth".
* Did they have a belly button?
Lol...I don't know.
I'm a young-earth creationist ...
.
Yet when I [correcty] assumed all these thing you replied with
Whoa Whoa Whoa!
I don't know what you've been smoking, but I said:
quote:Originally posted by benzene
Either we came about by chance, or something made us.
The literality of the Bible is a whole 'nother can of worms.
THAT TELLS ME that you are intentionally lying, deceiving, wriggling and squirming as much as you think you can get away with.
I used to have a sig that went. "NO-ONE PICKS A FIGHT WITH MarcUK and WINS"
YOU JUST LOST BIG TIME My friend. Lying for God. EXPOSED. CHEATING, FRAUD.
IF YOU HAVE TO TELLS LIES, IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.