Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 253
Debunking creationist mythsPage 11 of 24    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)


hi... how is it that certain people keep stating that science is completely at odds with creation??


Science investigates how nature works. It doesn't and cannot investigate how supernatural being violate the laws of nature willy-nilly, as required by creation. Scientific Creationism is a contradiction in terms.



do you think that God is only connecting with certain professions and not others??...


No, I think gods do not exist.



it is arrogant to suggest that creationists lack intelligence


Perhaps it's better to say that they compartmentalize their intelligence. They may be very intelligent, but when it comes to religious topics their intelligence no longer applies. A medical doctor may say that zombies are ridiculous myths, but they'll make an exception for a particular Jewish zombie simply because it's part of their religion. A Christian will reject the story of Muhammad flying to Heaven on the back of a Buraq (a pegasus like creature) as fantasy, but will shut off their intelligence when it comes to the story of God incarnating Himself as the human son of a virgin to be crucified by Romans so that He could forgive people for their sins, but only if you telepathically accept Him as your savior; all of which was necessary because a rib-woman ate an apple 4000 years earlier.



a point that I want to impress is that God has Stated that His Highest angel, that fell from heaven, is now on a mission to confound mankind


I know it's off-topic, but when did God say any of that?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 254
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 7:59:45 PM


You endorsed Ibli's account, calling the other side's arguments most likely "lies", and saying that was getting us closer to the truth.


I realize there's another possibility. Dr. Su might just be too stupid to understand paleontology and the fossil record.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 255
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:04:50 PM

I realize there's another possibility. Dr. Su might just be too stupid to understand paleontology and the fossil record.
yes, that is possible too. Or that you are wrong. That's possible too.
My comment was to show that Krebby does indeed have an agenda in this area. too bad he isn;t just admitting it.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 256
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:08:25 PM

Yeah, Rug, ah, Doctor, the reason that I said that it's closer to the truth is that his form of argumentation went directly to the question of whether a premise made earlier on this thread had "truth value."

You, on the other hand, seem content to argue with the trivialities of whether a navel is capable of holding lint. Big difference, huh?

Now, if you were to create an argument, one with truth value, on the creationist side, why, I'll probably be saying, Bravo for you, Rug, ah, Doctor. So go for it, create a solid argument with truth value for the creationist side.

It's an equal playing field .....
It's no triviality when Mutation is said to be another word for Evolution.
That screws with almost every statement made here.

Give it up.
I do not have to make ANY arguement for Creationism, as I'm not a Creationist. Play your juvenile game with someone else.

I detest lies presented in the name of Science, that's all.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 257
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:08:26 PM
Can I take it from the recent posts that the "young earth" side has produced a "champion" "scientist" for their side? Am I already too late to refute Dr.Su's claims?...or am I still waiting for someone to produce some creationist pseudo-scientist's fable (or lie) to refute?

Frankly, I'm getting tired of waiting...Hey Rug, can you pick one for me for me?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 258
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:13:37 PM

Frankly, I'm getting tired of waiting...Hey Rug, can you pick one for me for me?
I don't really bother with Creationists, so no, I don't know who their best is.
wy don't you pick one and then we can have a look at your work ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 259
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:17:44 PM

Define "area" as you have used it.

zone
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 260
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:20:13 PM
define "you". so that it's ALL clear.


Define "area" as you have used it.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 261
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:22:05 PM

Quit worrying about whether sh*t stinks, Rug, ah, Doctor, and get to addressing the question at hand. Yeah, I can verify, it does stink, so, move on .
who are you that I should pay any attention at all to your demands?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 262
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:26:04 PM
define "you". Your turn.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 263
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:28:15 PM



That's a "red herring" argument. Defend creationism. Or, "natural variation." All else is superfluous, whether I'm the devil incarnate or not.
one good red herring deserves a mate, no?

Now you insist that I defend Creationism. Why should I cede to your increasingly stupid demands ?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 264
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:32:49 PM


yes, that is possible too. Or that you are wrong. That's possible too.


That's not possible. The fossils that Dr. Su says would exist if evolution were true, exist. Thousands exist. This was the test that she imposed on herself to decide between evolution and Creationism. Since evolution passed her own test one must ask oneself why she chose Creationism. I can only think of a few possible reasons but the one that strikes me as most likely is that she has a religious opposition to evolution, never looked at the fossil evidence, and has lied about intensively studying the fossil record.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 265
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:36:05 PM
RE Msg: 417 by desertrhino:
Not everything can be reduced to a precise formula (see: Chaos theory),
Actually, chaos theory says that it CAN, certainly in the formulas that give rise to the chaos, but that the current maths doesn't have a method to take you from the formula that describes the iterative step to an absolute method of calculation. Examples where we DO have those methods are:
f(x+1) = x + a. f(x) = f(0) + ax.
f(x+1) = ax. f(x) = f(0)*a^x.
We just don't have those methods for all cases.

and even if it were possible, in the case of the molecular genetics of evolution, the number of variables would be so huge as to be impossible to parse.
People used to say the same about guns, what with all those wind factors, angles of elevation, how the bullet changes trajectory all the time, gravity changing almost constantly on the bullet, and many other factors. But once scientists like Newton decided that was rot, and these challenges were solvable, they sat down and worked each of them out. Got damn good at them too.

That's not the only time when people said "It's impossible, it's got too many factors." There are quite a few others. It seems to be quite common for people to say that, and then someone almost always proves them wrong. Funny that.

Honestly, your harping on this point is really likely to be a manifestation of your particular pathology. Just saying, is all.
Actually, it's probably one of the few things I'm not pathological about, although I am pathologically obstinate about saying that. I won't deny that I have a habit of saying "It can be done". Usually others say it can't. Then I go and do it, and others are really grateful. Or, I just give up, and someone else does it 6 months later, and then they are really p*ssed off, because they have to pay a fortune to get it for themselves. It's happened a lot in my life.

RE Msg: 422 by Funcuz:
Brevity ? You must be making a joke.
I'm trying. But people really make it hard. If I want to cut my posts short, I suppose I could say "You're making unproved assumptions that are mostly wrong", and leave it at that.

Now , I just wrote a point-by-point response to your post but then realized that it was far too long. I can sum it up for you though : Huh ? Do you even understand what you're reading and then what you're writing ? Like when you point out my "mistake" of using "supposition". Funny , that's why I used the words "I suppose". What exactly was the problem with this ? I'm not sure but you felt it necessary to repeat what I said and I have no idea why. You do this far too often.
McFly ! McFly !!!
It's that the supposition isn't even a valid supposition. It's like Biff assuming that if he goes headfirst into a manure pile, that somehow he'll avoid it.

Now this part , this just makes me shake my head. Where , oh where did this come from ? I mean seriously , you might want to take a look at my profile just a little harder before trying to tell me about different cultures around the world.
I used to have that problem a lot when I went abroad. I'd meet tourists, who went to the same places I did, and I asked them what they thought about the places I'd seen, and the stuff that I and my friends did. They almost always said they'd never known that those places or things existed. It turned out that most people went to the touristy places. I never liked doing that. If I wanted my own culture, I'd stay at home. So whenever I went somewhere, I made a beeline for the nearest local, and befriended them. I used to see all the stuff that most people never saw, and found out the stuff they never tell tourists.

And the bit about university , that's just baffling. They teach you that the world is populated by savages ? You should definitely ask for you money back (assuming you went to any institute of higher education)
They don't teach you that outright. That wouldn't be PC anymore. But it's the same problem. Most people get the touristy version. I hung out with the lecturers, and got to know them. So I got to see a lot of things that most people didn't even know existed.

As for condescending , no not really. It would be condescending if you'd actually exhibited much more than incoherency but I'm afraid that that wasn't the case. Other than repeating what I said while implying that you disagree with it , it looked a lot more like you wrote a lot of words without actually saying anything substantial.
OK. I'll bring it down to a much simpler level.

Most of what you learn is based on assumptions. A lot of those assumptions are based on the culture that the people who are telling you that stuff were raised in, but the majority is based on what the people telling you that stuff would like you to believe, because it will make their lives much simpler if you believe them, rather than asking about if they are true. They are taken for a given, well before they start speaking. They're assumed, and then other stuff is worked out assuming them. Then other stuff is worked out assuming that, and more. Then other stuff is worked out, assuming all that, and more. Then all that is condensed. Then it's ordered in an order that makes it seem to flow naturally, as if it was always true. Then it's taught to you. That's the stuff you hear.

RE Msg: 424 by CountIbli:
Since life exists I'd say the probability of life is 100%.
That life exists, whether or not the theory of evolution is true? Yes. That life would definitely have occured if the theory of evolution is true? Not proved at all. Just assumed.

Evolution has been observed so the probability of evolution is 100%.
That CHANGE has been observed? Yes. That was observed thousands of years before Darwin. That the theory of evolution was developed into an exact predictive set of formulae, and all them were tested accurately against the data, in a black-or-white quantitative way? Nope. Not been done at all. It's all very hazily treated, qualitatively, rather than quantitatively.

It's rather like mental illness is treated, which accounts for why we're far better at treating mental illness than cancer, and why diagnosis is so poor in mental illness. The ironic thing about it, is not that mental illness is so difficult for professionals to diagnose. It's that in case studies putting sane patients faking symptoms in front of doctors, that the doctors misdiagnosed them all, but that ALL of the students reported that the other patients went up to them and told them they were obviously faking it. Something about mental illness allows those with it, to spot the signs in others, even others with different illnesses than their own. So it's diagnosable. But doctors still have a really hard time diagnosing it. The main reason why, is that it's treated qualitatively, and not quantitatively, that requires you to throw out all hypotheses until you find one that matches the data almost spot on.

The same happens with the theory of evolution. It's evaluated on qualities, not quantities. Qualities can look anyhow to anyone. When you're expecting a fin, something that looks like a fin, could be a fin, even it's a tail. Only quantities are black-and-white. When you're expecting a 2, and you get a 3, you KNOW you got something seriously wrong.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 266
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:39:23 PM

first, I'm not the devil incarnate, or at least I hope that I'm not, insofar as I'm engaged in Empircism, and not Faith (I do believe in God).


Now you insist that I defend Creationism. Why should I cede to your increasingly stupid demands ?


You seem to have backed yourself into that corner, maestro.

One good red herring does not deserve another -- you presented a red herring argument, I called you on it. I choose not to present a red herring argument, as I know better. That's the history of this thread and folks can peruse the archive to see if it's true or not. There's more than a few really smart folks on here. I leave it up to their judgment -- they can make the call.




I have not backed myself into any corner, Swami.

Now, tell me, if you would...why should I cede to your ridiculous demands ? You have not offered anything that interests me thus far..care to explain why do you think you are entitled to push and shove me ?

You have already offered red herring in your support of Verzen.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 267
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 8:47:32 PM
I'm fine with heat...do you have any to offer. Cholmondeley ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 268
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 9:00:55 PM

So says the cadaver after being burnt to a crisp.

I enjoyed our little discussion tonite. Thank you, so much, rug, ah, doctor, for allowing me to have some fun tonite.

I, Krebby2001, bid you adieu, for a while, see ya around.
Krebby, I'm glad that you have managed to convince yourself of that. Have a nice nap.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 269
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 9:02:03 PM
wy don't you pick one and then we can have a look at your work ?

I picked a guy out of the bunch at random. It turned out to be Dr. Thomas Barnes, who really was a physicist (though his doctorate was questionable, since it was honorary, but I can give him the benefit of the doubt on that one; he was a legitimate professor of physics.) While he believed in "young earth" creationism, his arguments in that regard stemmed from his physics as I'd hoped (at least he tried to be consistent).

While his views were considered pseudo-scientific by the bulk of the scientific community, much of his work, though odd and definitely not the mainstream view (outdated classical physics) does appear to present theoretical alternatives to things like quantum mechanics and relativity, which he tried to either refute or (when that didn't work) explain in terms of classical physics.

His greatest accomplishment in that regard appears to have been constructs appearing to support Parson's Toroidal Ring Model of the Electron. Unfortunately for him, later experiments tended to validate the Standard Model and a lack of ringlike substructure for the Electron. So empirical observation relegated his greatest(?) acheivement to the dustbin.

While I'm sure it didn't shake his "faith" in a young earth, it seems his work to shoehorn one into physics was a complete failure and he must have died a frustrated man.

I got most of this from Wikipedia, so I can't validate everything I said about him (wikipedia is notorious for inaccuracy & even outright lies at times), but it seems to be pretty credible to me, so I didn't bother to explore further. If any creationist cares to argue with me about anything I've said, I'll be more than happy to delve deeper into it. If not, well, then, I think I've (not me; the standard model) pretty well (and without much effort) refuted the basis he tried to establish for a young earth.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 270
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 9:04:33 PM


I picked a guy out of the bunch at random. It turned out to be Dr. Thomas Barnes, who really was a physicist (though his doctorate was questionable, since it was honorary, but I can give him the benefit of the doubt on that one; he was a legitimate professor of physics.) While he believed in "young earth" creationism, his arguments in that regard stemmed from his physics as I'd hoped (at least he tried to be consistent).

While his views were considered pseudo-scientific by the bulk of the scientific community, much of his work, though odd and definitely not the mainstream view (outdated classical physics) does appear to present theoretical alternatives to things like quantum mechanics and relativity, which he tried to either refute or (when that didn't work) explain in terms of classical physics.

His greatest accomplishment in that regard appears to have been constructs appearing to support Parson's Toroidal Ring Model of the Electron. Unfortunately for him, later experiments tended to validate the Standard Model and a lack of ringlike substructure for the Electron. So empirical observation relegated his greatest(?) acheivement to the dustbin.

While I'm sure it didn't shake his "faith" in a young earth, it seems his work to shoehorn one into physics was a complete failure and he must have died a frustrated man.

I got most of this from Wikipedia, so I can't validate everything I said about him (wikipedia is notorious for inaccuracy & even outright lies at times), but it seems to be pretty credible to me, so I didn't bother to explore further. If any creationist cares to argue with me about anything I've said, I'll be more than happy to delve deeper into it. If not, well, then, I think I've pretty well (and without much effort) refuted the basis he tried to establish for a young earth.
I thought we might get a look at YOUR work. Oh well. that's all right. Forget it.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 271
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 9:08:20 PM
I thought we might get a look at YOUR work. Oh well.

Hey; I'm only in this for the laughs; what in hell were you expecting, a peer reviewed paper refuting his work? I got better things to do, like reading everybody else's posts.

Besides, I went into it completely blind. How was I supposed to know in advance the Standard Model had already done the work for me?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 272
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 9:14:54 PM

The subject to whom I am writeing. "You" being the person going by the screen name "rug doctor". Were you confused?
No, I am not confused, but I think you may be. You can either accept one or the other of words I have given you, or you can reject them both, or ignore them.
There's not much I can do to help you further than that.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 273
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 9:17:38 PM

.

Hey; I'm only in this for the laughs; what in hell were you expecting, a peer reviewed paper refuting his work? I got better things to do, like reading everybody else's posts.

Besides, I went into it completely blind. How was I supposed to know in advance the Standard Model had already done the work for me?
I understand. I'd like a funny review, when you have the time. that would be a change, eh ?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 274
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 9:25:07 PM
^^^ I decided to look him up as well, as it's not often that people are given an "honorary" Physics degree, and I was interested in Parson's Toroidal Ring Model of the Electron.

According to Wikipedia, he got a BSc in 1933 and a MSc in 1936. The rest of his degrees I cannot validate as anything more than honorary. But it makes the claim that he invented DODAR, an electronic device used by the Marines for locating enemy guns, for the US government during World War II. But I'm having a bit of trouble finding stuff on it.

They seem to like him on World Science Database, and call him a "physicist's physicist". But I've never heard of that either.
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&tab2=Display&id=273

I do like the Toroidal Ring idea, even if it's only an idea to play with for fun. It's a model that I might find useful in another field of research. One can never have enough tools.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 275
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 9:26:38 PM

Let's say that this new sequencing proves itself superior to the sequencing that's already out there -- That's "Selection." Let's now assume that this new sequencing has the ability to sustain and reproduce itself -- That's "Retention." The foregoing are the three basic steps of "evolution" -- a very tough "row to hoe," as it should be for the continuance of "survival of the species."
Is that the only way in which the "Selection" portion of Evolution happens ? i.e. a sequence proving itself superior ? If so, how does it prove itself superior ? Should we assume that you are talking about it being superior for the individual , only, or does it also need to be superior for the group...or can it be instead, superior for the group, population, or species ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 276
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 10:05:16 PM

f you have any kids then you are a transition between your parents and your offspring. If your bones are ever fossilized then they'd also be transitional fossils.


OK, we're talking about fossils. However, I would also accept that you may use living things, saying "if we found this individual fossilized..."

Now, suppose I do not have any children, my parents never get any grandchildren. I get fossilized...Am I transitional in the same way , then ? Between my parents and my kids ? No.

How would I be "transitional" in that case , in a way that is showing Evolution to be true ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 277
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 10:10:23 PM

By "area" do you (rug doctor) mean in the limited context of all the posts in this thread? All matters pertaining to the subject of Creationism? Within the specific boundaries of your (rug doctor) discussion with Krebby?
You now have made a claim. Prove that I cannot be more specific. Or I will ignore you as you deserve to be ignored.

If you (rug doctor) are not confused then why can't you (rug doctor) be more specific?
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths