|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:07:08 PM | Ok, now i am going to repeat what already was said there (please, pay attention this time ). Copernicus and Galeleo were Christians. They believed the Bible is true. Do a research and see. In Physics there were scientists who were also Christians: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin (they believed Bible is true). In Chemistry:Mendeleev (he started the periodic table of elements) Boyle (he also was a theologian), Dalton, Ramsay. In Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz. In Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier. In Astronomy: Kepler, Herschel, Maunder. In Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler. They all were christians. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:10:03 PM | "It is significant, despite the common claim that creationism is a religion while evolutionism is science, that most of the world's religions are based on evolution rather than creation"
Argument from spurious similarity- this is such a blatant logical fallacy that you shouldn't even need a familiarity with logic and debate to recognize it. I'm surprised this was said.
There is no religion based on evolution. Some vague reference to life coming from the waters in an ancient religion is no example of such either. You are basically saying that because some (and not most) religions don't require a diety that they are based on evolution. BLATANT logical fallacy.
"How do evolutionists know about how the earth looked like billions of years ago? Guesses, guesses. Guess who, guess how and guess when etc, etc, etc."
This is not accurate. They are not just guesses; they are models constructed from paleontological and now genetic data, using both inductive and dedutive reasoning. That is the opposite of a guess. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:15:15 PM | | Then prove scientifically (experimentally and also from observation and 100%) that Evolution happened the way evolutionists claim it happened. Were you there and saw how it happened? Don't forget to mention the 1-st and the 2-nd law of thermodynamics while you are at it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:20:15 PM | "They all were christians."
So? What's your point? If your point is somehow that it lends credence to creationism you are again guilty of blatant logical fallacies- two in fact.
argumentum ad verecundiam- appeal to authority. There are also pysicists who have some pretty kooky new age beliefs. Does that lend credence to that? They would be the first to say it doesn't. Their ontological beliefs are unrelated to science, which brings us to...
Fallacy of composition- Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued
that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object
composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of
individual members.
Just because some scientists are christians does not mean that christianity is scientifically proven, and it certainly doesn't mean that creationists interpretation of christianity is proven. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:23:51 PM | | I'm so glad you brought up the second law of thermodynamics- the second law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system. The earth is an open system continually being supplied with energy from the sun. It's the same reason we have weather patterns. So it simply doesn't apply. As to the first law, how are you suggesting it contradicts evolution? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:26:13 PM | "Then prove scientifically (experimentally and also from observation and 100%)"
This statement displays a profound misunderstanding of science. Science is composed of theories that are abstract approximations. Nothing in science claims 100%- that is a philisophical matter. If you want stabs at absolute truths, I suggest you look to philosophy. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:30:47 PM |
Argument from spurious similarity- this is such a blatant logical fallacy that you shouldn't even need a familiarity with logic and debate to recognize it. I'm surprised this was said.
That is your opinion based soley on your perception of what YOU believe may be factual to you, and how you interpret the information.
This is not accurate. They are not just guesses; they are models constructed from paleontological and now genetic data, using both inductive and dedutive reasoning. That is the opposite of a guess.
Again these are theories that coincide with certain hypothesies, hardly any of it is absolute. It is conjecture. Theories based on other theories ,and data that is so subjestive, it can be manipuated into more than one possible interpretation. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:33:52 PM | how exactly dose evolution contravine.....
Heat added to a system
-
The work done by a system
=
The change in internal energy?
Trying to baffle us with science wont work. We understand the mechanisms you are attempting to use to baffle us, even if you do not. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:39:19 PM | "That is your opinion based soley on your perception of what YOU believe may be factual to you, and how you interpret the information."
Wrong- it's a matter of deductive logic. Yes perception certainly colors what we see, but we are talking about the internal consistency of an argument. It is independent of either side of the debate.
"hardly any of it is absolute"
Again, a profound misunderstanding of science. I hear this argument so often that it boggles my mind. Where did you get the idea that science takes an absolute position on anything? Science is more about the method of emprical and theoretical inquiry than the absolute truth. Again- you are talking about philosophy. And there is a whole lot of disagreement in that discipline, which kind of shows the folly of chasing absolute truth. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:48:08 PM |
That is your opinion based soley on your perception of what YOU believe may be factual to you, and how you interpret the information.
Miss-quoating him will not help.
The argument was based on the asumption that the two subjects were similar when they were not. Wonkavision was pointing out that this would be a logical falicy and anyone ussing logic as a tool to understanding, would have to disregard this argument as it was spurios. It was not his interpration, or opionon but the one of the basics or reason. If you wish to diregard reason then fine, go ahead, but in that case I would like to sell you a Tiger repelent spray... lmao
Again these are theories that coincide with certain hypothesies, hardly any of it is absolute. It is conjecture.
Models are not theories or cojecture, they are practical tools ussed to represent a theory and to see how it works, for example I can use a salt shaker and ice cube tray to MODEL the way that acid rain depletes Glaciers. I will not argue that I have just created a glacier though, I will only state that the model is a good representation of how the salts in acid rain disolve glacial ice.
Theories based on other theories ,and data that is so subjestive, it can be manipuated into more than one possible interpretation.
Scientific theories are not bassed on theories, they are bassed on testable scientific fact. Only people with an agenda base theories on theories (like Eric von daniken dose). And data can be spun and missreprented to provide evidence for any thing, as is evidence with the start of your last post. But you can also take steps to avoid doing this, use scientific methadology. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:48:24 PM | | The Earth is flat. Its only a few thousand years old. All life existing now has always existed in essentially the same forms. Stop trying to trick people. You almost had me thinking I wasn't a lizard. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:52:30 PM | "...for example I can use a salt shaker and ice cube tray to MODEL the way that acid rain depletes Glaciers. I will not argue that I have just created a glacier though, I will only state that the model is a good representation of how the salts in acid rain disolve glacial ice."
Very good example of what purpose a scientific model serves; it points out elegantly what I have been saying verbosely- models are abstract representations of nature, based on empirical data.
MLR! Welcome back! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 4:59:49 PM | | Wonka, you said "just because some scientists are Christians does not mean christianity is true", now, just because some scientists are Evolutionists, DOES this PROVE the evolution is true? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 5:03:31 PM | | Hi cute lizard! Please read posts carefully. Bible does not say the earth is flat. Arestotel said it (he was an ancient greek philosopher; Arestotelian and Ptolemaic viewpoint and NOT a Biblical one). Just because Catholic Church used ancient greek worldview does not mean Bible says it. And no, all life forms now is not really the same when God created it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 5:04:13 PM | | First, if you are refering to absolute truth, then no. I already addressed that. Secondly, evolution is a scientific theory, so their opinion as scientists is certainly relevant, but it logically does not prove anything. What proves evolution to be a sound theory (not absolute truth) is the overwhelming evidence and sound inductive reasoning. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 5:07:21 PM | | Logically does not prove anything. Not an absolute truth. Then why bother with Evolution? Evidence? Show me the evidence. Some person here some time ago mentioned the impossibility of assemblage of proteins by themselves. Prove it wrong then | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 5:17:05 PM | The same might be demanded to any that claim the biblical interpretations being truth as well.
Were you there? Did you see how it happened?
If the biblical interpretations are true then you have a perfect historical blueprint to map out your claims.
If someone of a creationist perspective wishes to make a point - perhaps they should try using the same tool that evolutionists use to make their point.
Science and the scientific methodology. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 5:25:18 PM | | The premise of creationism is not compatible with the scientific method, it involves "belief without proof". | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 5:26:17 PM | By logic I am talking about a formal representation of an argument with internal consistency. In fact it is so formal that it is represented mathematically in the discipline. Science is not pure logic, it utilizes logic to keep it's reasoning from getting sloppy, but there is a lot more to science that logic.
"the impossibility of assemblage of proteins by themselves. Prove it wrong then"
There is actually a lot of research in just this field of study (which I seem to need to mention again is not really evolution, but a tangential discipline) The following is from "science week"
and is just one recent example of many studies being done in related areas.
Two recent workshops(1) reviewed the state of the art in artificial cell research, much of which focuses on self-replicating lipid vesicles. David Deamer (Univ. of California, Santa Cruz) and Pier Luigi Luisi (ETH Zurich) each described the production of lipids using light energy, and the template-directed self-replication of RNA within a lipid vesicle. In addition, Luisi demonstrated the polymerization of amino acids into proteins on the vesicle surface, which acts as a catalyst for the polymerization process. The principal hurdle remains the synthesis of efficient RNA replicases and related enzymes entirely within an artificial cell. Martin Hanczyc (Harvard Univ.) showed how the formation of lipid vesicles can be catalyzed by encapsulated clay particles with RNA adsorbed on their surfaces. This suggests that encapsulated clay could catalyze both the formation of lipid vesicles and the polymerization of RNA.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 5:38:18 PM | Is there such a thing as a rational creationist ? JEEEEZE!!!!!!!
Let me restate a comment made by Copernicus who we seem to agree was OK
Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions and, badly distorting some passages of Scripture to their purpose, will dare find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent as despising their criticism as unfounded.
And let's not forget that Galileo used Simplico to name the supporter of Ptolemy.
Simplicos and babblers. Am I being unjust or could this be a correct interpretation of the evidence?
BTW - welcome back MJL - thought you'd fallen of the surface of the flat planet! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 5:40:51 PM | "...by Copernicus who we seem to agree was OK"
QuietJohn, you slay me. That made me laugh out loud. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 5:49:57 PM |
Logically does not prove anything. Not an absolute truth. Then why bother with Evolution? Evidence? Show me the evidence. Some person here some time ago mentioned the impossibility of assemblage of proteins by themselves. Prove it wrong then
Well you are ussing logical falicy to try to prove your poitn (you enjoy doing that dont you) but OK then, I will follow the carrot.
Do you realy belive that every protien in every cell on the planet is created by god? So ever time you eat, god has to interviene to create protiens in your cells so that you can digest food and live? That seems a bit wastefull to me.
The mechanisms that creates protiens in the cell is the same mechanism that creates protiens outside the cell.
Proteins are synthesized by stepwise addition of amino acids in a chain series. The first amino acid (the N-terminus) is always methionine. Methionine and additional amino acids near the N-terminus may get removed as the protein is synthesized. The last amino acid is the C-terminus, named for the free carboxyl group of the last amino acid.
Amino acids are formed in nature from simple sugars, sugars form naturaly anywhere there is hydrogen oxogen nitrogen and carbon. Methionine is an Amino acid with a recepter cite (in the chemical structure of Aminos it is a carboxyle group ) that is capable of holding onto almost any other Amino acid and is hungry for them (its force atraction is greater than anywhere else on the molecule)
Ribosomes are used in the cell to catalysie this reaction but are not necicery to the formation of the Protiens (as is evidence from the fact that clouds of protien have been observed in space). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 7:09:01 PM | Logically does not prove anything.
Logic cannot defeat an argument that has as its basis an absolute belief, in the same sense that a 44 magnum cannot kill an imaginary person.
"If he's dead you can't prove it!" "Therfor he is still alive!" Okay then. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 7:50:49 PM | [QUOTE]re not theories or cojecture, they are practical tools ussed to represent a theory and to see how it works, for example I can use a salt shaker and ice cube tray to MODEL the way that acid rain depletes Glaciers. I will not argue that I have just created a glacier though, I will only state that the model is a good representation of how the salts in acid rain disolve glacial ice.[/QUOTE]
The model is still subjective. It is more of an analogy , than a tool to prove fact. There are variables in the model that don't coincide with the absolute. A model is at best , a tool to make a vague comparison.
Scientific theories are not bassed on theories, they are bassed on testable scientific fact. Only people with an agenda base theories on theories (like Eric von daniken dose). And data can be spun and missreprented to provide evidence for any thing, as is evidence with the start of your last post. But you can also take steps to avoid doing this, use scientific methadology
Scientific methOdolgy? bas_ed on theories? Like all of the evoltionists used who ultimately became creationists? again ot is all perspective.
The argument was based on the asumption that the two subjects were similar when they were not. Wonkavision was pointing out that this would be a logical falicy and anyone ussing logic as a tool to understanding, would have to disregard this argument as it was spurios. It was not his interpration, or opionon but the one of the basics or reason. If you wish to diregard reason then fine, go ahead, but in that case I would like to sell you a Tiger repelent spray... lmao
basics or reasons , how you interpret them to be , so they make sense to you. About the above mentioned comment, The same can be said about your argument . perspective ...perspective ...perspective, did I mentionit is a matter of perspective, and how we each interpret what we believe to be facts, since ther is NO absolutes.
""""""""""""""" What proves evolution to be a sound theory (not absolute truth) is the overwhelming evidence and sound inductive reasoning.
The same exact thing can be said about creationism, Logically.
The same might be demanded to any that claim the biblical interpretations being truth as well.
Were you there? Did you see how it happened?
If the biblical interpretations are true then you have a perfect historical blueprint to map out your claims """"""
Ahhhh... yes that is where one of the differences are , Even though there is just as much logical tangible evidence to support creationism , and disprove evolutionism . as there is to say the opposite, alot of those who accept creationism would accept it even if there wasn't the mountains and mountains of logic to support it . Some of the arguements for creationism was founded by evolutionists who discovered evidence to support creationism. (Google it , I am not making this up, or read the article I posted in an earlier post)The one difference between the people who believe creationism and evolutionism ,is that those who ultimately believe in creationism , don't need to keep proving their point , because of faith. Alot of those who try to prove evolutionism have to keep trying to come up with different theories to prove a point , where as those who believe in creationism ,believe it is unecessary to do such , because they already know how to interpret the real truth. But it would take a far greater man than I to explain "faith" to those who choose to not understand it , and deny it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:01:21 PM | Um,... This is going to take a while...
Couple things, though.
QuietJohn, I don't think I quite understood the basis for the questioning, and I did think you were joking on some of them, which is why, partially joking myself, my answers probably didn't make any sense.
Dryad, cool on the radio-wave propagation. I actually know it, but it helps to get a refresher. I just read the word "inference" in your post and thought you were referencing a double-slit term I didn't know.
As to the rest, stay tuned. | |
|
|
| Page 38 of 156
|
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 |
|
Home
login 
