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
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 176
view profile
History
Debunking creationist mythsPage 8 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)
RE Msg: 327 by stargazer1000 and Msg: 328 by vichycycl:

Stargazer brought up guidance systems. Either you see the comparison or you don't want to. Those who agree with you, won't change their opinions by your words, and for those who don't, don't see a point in taking 10 pages to just explain the comparison, only to have you just ignore your acceptance, and start trying to argue some other point. So your words are irrelevant.

Find something constructive to say.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 177
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/27/2009 5:39:59 AM
Personally, I would draw the analogy that evolution is like a shotgun blast. LOTS of trajectories are tried, and a few succeed in hitting the target.
 Astro82
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 178
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/27/2009 5:47:44 AM
Both sides seem to be so passionate about "pwning" the other side that it's hard to take either side seriously.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 179
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/27/2009 9:10:21 AM
Stargazer brought up guidance systems.


No, I brought up the clear flaw in logic that arises from the presumption that, somehow, a mutation that provides a benefit on one hand and a detriment on the other somehow supports the idea of a intelligent and active designer, such as what sign11 seemed to be trying to propose. Indeed, it supports the "randomness" of mutation as an unguided process and therefore shows how unnecessary a "designer" is since "guided" evolution would be a lot more efficient.


Either you see the comparison or you don't want to.


Oh, I see the comparison you're trying to make. I just say it's clearly a flawed analogy.


Those who agree with you, won't change their opinions by your words, and for those who don't, don't see a point in taking 10 pages to just explain the comparison, only to have you just ignore your acceptance, and start trying to argue some other point.


And? If someone agrees with me, great. If they don't, fine. If there are other points to be made, isn't that kind of the point of a discussion board? Or are you suddenly worried about brevity?


Find something constructive to say.


In other words, what? Shut up because we've exposed the flaw to your logic? I don't think so.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 180
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/27/2009 4:58:17 PM
Divagreen...

If you don't mind indulging my curiosity for a moment... would you mind telling me which religion does NOT have some form of creation-myth incorporated into it?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 181
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/27/2009 8:22:57 PM
I don't want to get this mired into anything, but I actually do have a question regarding the development of the genome. Specifically, if there is any insight (other than intelligent designer, that is) for RNA and DNA to have become more "complex" over time.

It's easy to see that early forms of DNA would have been very simple things to begin with but, over time and exposure and interaction with the environment and other primitive RNA and DNA strands, bits and pieces being added, subtracted etc.

Is there any insight into this process? Points of "connection" that have been identified in the DNA strand, so-called "junk" DNA, etc.? I'm interested in the insights from people here who actually have a background in biological processes.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 182
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/30/2009 5:23:41 AM
RE Msg: 332 by stargazer1000:
No, I brought up the clear flaw in logic that arises from the presumption that, somehow, a mutation that provides a benefit on one hand and a detriment on the other somehow supports the idea of a intelligent and active designer, such as what sign11 seemed to be trying to propose.
That's an obvious fallacy. Everything that makes an advantage in some situation, makes a disadvantage in other situations. A hammer can help us make things, but it equally can be used to destroy things. A rock can be used to build a house to protect us, but it equally can be used to hurt us. A building can be a home to protect us, or a prison.

Indeed, it supports the "randomness" of mutation as an unguided process and therefore shows how unnecessary a "designer" is since "guided" evolution would be a lot more efficient.
As I already pointed out, guidance systems are much more efficient when they rely on a system of checks and counter-checks. They allow multiple variations for adjusting to the environment. Further, even to achieve an objective, they allow for a much more efficient use of system resources, for a binary +/- variation system, allows for a far greater efficiency model. To provide a single +/- on the 2^10 power, then a single +/- on the 2^9 power, then all following powers, achieves an objective of any particular value in a quality in the range of 0-1024, with a maximum of only 10 adjustments. To achieve the same with a linear model, requires a maximum of 1024 adjustments, 100 times the multiple-correction model. Even our own bodies work this way, for insulin secretion works on an exponential model of adjustment, just like the course-correction model, rather than a linear model, because it is just so much more efficient for the body to work this way.

And? If someone agrees with me, great. If they don't, fine. If there are other points to be made, isn't that kind of the point of a discussion board? Or are you suddenly worried about brevity?
I'm just trying to avoid the usual arguments I end up in on POF, because I'm starting to see that they are a waste of my time. Sure, if no-one really benefitted from my help, then I guess it wouldn't matter. But I keep having people who I've helped before, ask for my help again and again. My efforts seem to be too beneficial to too many for me to not realise that such arguments are cutting down the time I could spend helping the world.

In other words, what? Shut up because we've exposed the flaw to your logic? I don't think so.
Nope. Just say something that is actually going to give me MORE information, or more food for thought, rather than just arguing pointlessly.

Ask yourself a hypothetical question: why are you so adamant about evolution? As the saying goes, "the truth speaks for itself". If non-creationist evolution is more likely than creationist ideas, then surely if both are given equal value, non-creationist evolution would stand out a mile as being more accurate. Conversely, if non-creationist evolution is only treated as the truth, and creationist ideas are ignored, then how can anyone be sure that non-creationist evolution is true, and not just considered true because no-one is willing to consider anything else?

Karl Popper pointed this out, that unless you can truly conceive that evolution is false, and accept that it might be false, with no qualms, you just can't prove it true. So, until everyone can accept that, evolution is at risk of being only true, because too many are refusing to accept it might be false.

RE Msg: 336 by Funcuz:
See.. a perfect example of mixing religion with science despite the efforts of the authour to appear unbiased.
There is no faith needed to understand science. It is always open to dispute and "taking it seriously" doesn't require anybody to take any side.
That is the problem, though. If science is always open to dispute, then there is no problem with some disputing any theory in it, including those who claim that evolution is wrong, and including those who claim that evolution is true, but only when you combine it with creationism.

The evidence for the theory of evolution is completely open and available for your persusal at any time. You can challenge it at any time and review the evidence as you like. There is no faith required to believe the theory of evolution ... all you need to do is to throw out faith in the idea that evolution must be wrong.
In that case, then if someone doesn't thing that evolution MUST be wrong, but STILL thinks evolution is not probably right, then you would agree that this person has no faith in or against the theory of evolution, and is perfectly correct in their views?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 183
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/30/2009 9:58:31 AM
science, being open for correction, might never be right, it just gets closer.

sorry to repeat, but science and religon have to be 100% in agreement, or one, or both are wrong.

both have been wrong many times.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 184
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/24/2009 2:01:06 PM
RE Msg: 323 by vichycycl:
You're right. A system that was supposed to make a certain thing happen would have to make continual course corrections. Good thing natural selection doesn't claim it has any specific goal. All bungling and all blind 'course corrections' are allowed until they don't work, so any 'design' is tried without any check on its efficacy aforethought.

Aforethought really doesn't work, actually, because there is NO thought.
Interesting hypothesis. That holds very well in a static system, that never changes. But I'm not sure that it holds for our global ecological system. The global ecological system is by definition dynamic. In any dynamic system, the system is continually confronted with choices which are mutually exclusive. In each choice, only one choice is made. So the global ecological system automatically has continual choice corrections, irrespective of what we think, and irrespective of whether we think the system thinks or not.

It merely remains to question if the system makes those continual choice corrections in a manner consistent with random behaviour or intelligent behaviour. Obviously, those choices will be limited by the structures of the system. Some choices will be forced. Some choices will have a limited number of options. Some choices will have a million options. However, each of those choices that allow for multiple options according to the system's rules, will have to be available for choice. The system MUST be able to choose any one of those options that are allowed for by the system's rules and structures.

Within those choices, if the choices are chosen randomly, we'll see a pattern that is proved mathematically by the Central Limit Theorem, that the choices will, over more and more choices, turn to a normal distribution, what we see as a bell curve. The shape of the bell curve, where it's centre is, and how large it spreads, is determined by the probabilities that are determined by the rules of the system. This is proved mathematically beyond doubt. We have so many trillions of life-forms, that there are easily more than enough choices for us to discern such a bell curve, right across nature. It therefore is rather easy to determine if the distribution of species fits the bell curved predicted by the probabilities that we worked out first, based on the rules of the system, that we know, by the design of the system, using the chemical structure of DNA and the rest of the cell, and the biological processes that go on in each cell.

It's really quite straight-forward.

RE Msg: 324 by stargazer1000:
Well, the faulty logic in that has already been pointed out
I've pointed the problem with that out.

but I'll also point out that this is a tremendous way of hedging one's bets. "Yes there's an intelligent designer but occasionally he makes mistakes so he has to go back and correct his work."
Not really. All it says is that things converge, in exactly the same way that mathematics describes convergence. One can converge by going away from the limit sometimes, as well as towards the limit, as long as the overall trend is towards the limit. We find this in the actions of birds versus aeroplanes. We fly aeroplanes almost dead ahead. That uses tremendous amounts of fuel. Birds almost never fly a direct path. They fly sometimes forward, sometimes backwards, but overall forwards. They do this, because that allows them to use the thermals in the air to give them lift, instead of their own power. That makes them thousands of times more efficient than the best aeroplanes that just fly straight forwards. It means that the mistakes are part of the plan. They are only mistakes to those who use the most grossly inefficient and wasteful of methods, that are more wasteful by thousands of times.

In other words, I want to have my cake and eat it too.
If being efficient means I want to have my cake and eat it too, then of course I want that. If I have a bag of nuts, then I could eat them all today. Or, I could save them and not eat any. But if I only need one nut a day to fulfil my RDA for Selenium, then I would hope that I would eat one nut a day, and then I would have my nuts and eat them too. I just don't eat them all at once, because that is by far the most efficient system. Why should I be inefficient?

Again, it assumes there's a "point" to the development of life.
Of course any guidance system requires a "point", a limit of convergence. Otherwise, there would be nothing to guide to. However, you need to PROVE that there is no point to existence first. Otherwise, it's just an assumption.

Indeed, the logic fails again because, again, we see no evidence of the "creator's" work beyond biology itself.
Correct me if I am wrong. But it is your opinion that there is no proof of the "Creator" in biology anyway. So you are making a false distinction. Further, there are plenty of people who claim that there ARE proofs of the "Creator" far beyond biology. I believe we've argued about some of those very points. We disagree far more than biology. If I understand you right, it is your belief that there is no proof of the "Creator" at all. It is my belief that there are LOTS of proofs of the "Creator", in biology and out. But I don't want you to believe in G-d because I was more persuasive. I only want you to come to your own conclusions. So I don't want to persuade you. You must choose your views yourself, and you will have to live with their consequences.

Sorry, but you're going to have to do better to convince this agnostic.
I have no interest in convincing you of anything. If I was out to "convert" you to my beliefs, then I'd put up a MUCH stronger argument that I am. I have much stronger arguments. I just want you to make your own conclusions, as that is the only real freedom anyone has, to be free to choose your own views and opinions. Why should I deny you free will?

Sorry, the baby thing is also a false analogy. A baby isn't an entire biological system.
Any total organism is an entire biological system in itself. It has input and outputs. But it's still a full ecological system. It's just incomplete. But then, no system is complete. Even the whole global ecological system would fail entirely if it didn't have the input of the Sun's energy. Even if you add in the Sun, the solar system relies upon its place in the galaxy, held in by the super-black-hole in the centre, and the other stars. The galaxy itself is held by the other galaxies. There is no such thing as a "complete" system. We analyse all systems in terms of their relative completeness, as a complete entity. This is true of a baby as well.

And the issue isn't one of behaviour...you're using "development" in the entirely wrong context.
I'm using the word "development" in terms of the neural development of the stored memory, as well as the physical development of the tissues. That's wrong according to someone who only looks at one part of an entire system, that cannot be treated as an entire system at all. But looking at the system as a totally integrated system, which it is, then it is necessary to not leave out parts of the system.

RE Msg: 104 by stargazer1000:
Actually, Paul, "scientific types" as you call 'em actually have no problem saying "I don't know." Indeed, that is at the very basis of the scientific process. The desire to know is the motivation for moving forward.

I notice you, like every other "non-scientific" type, if I can paraphrase, use the word theory as in "only a theory." That is the layman version. There is a theory of gravity, there is atomic theory, there are theories for a number of things we take for granted. "Theory" is not an "idea" or "hypothesis." It's more robust than that.
That's a scientist's approach. Paul is a businessman.

In business, a lot of ideas are proposed. Some have not much basis, and remain as robust as "ideas". Others have more basis, and are shown to be as robust as a "hypothesis". Some have a lot of proof behind them, and are shown to be as robust as any "theory". Still others have far more proof, and are as reliable as the strongest of scientific theories.

However, in some situations, they ALL turn out to be wrong, and every one of them turns out to be wrong in unexpected situations. When they are, if you've bet everything you have against them, you're BROKE.

So, in any situation, businessmen cannot afford to say that ANY idea, or hypothesis, or theory, is right. They have far too much to lose.

Businessmen have to weigh up the probability of any idea, or hypothesis, or theory, that they use, whether it be in economics, or science, or any field, against how much they are investing in it, and how much they stand to lose if it's wrong. That subject is called Risk Analysis. Insurance companies do everything by Risk Analysis. That's how they work. Practically every large business employs Risk Analysts to work out those possible losses, and how much the company should invest in anything that relies upon that idea, or hypothesis, or theory. They have to, or they'd go broke.

In science, the same thing is true. In science, one works upon ideas, develops them into hypotheses, and then develop them further into theories. However, when it comes to building structures like the LHC based on them, the same problems occur. These theories could be wrong in a situation. If they are, then the structure could collapse, or explode. Something like the LHC could literally blow up Europe if engineers aren't careful. So engineers don't work with theories. They work with probabilities of theories. Actually, they don't even work with probabilities, because any probability is only a range of probabilities over a given confidence interval. We can only say that any probability lies between +/- some variation, with some percentage of confidence that we got our experiments and our sums right. So engineers work with probability distributions of theories. They weigh those probability distributions and confidence intervals against the cost of building, and against the costs of compensation if those probabilities are wrong. Based on that, they weigh up what methods to use, and what materials to use, to build the structure. They then explain these assessments to insurance assessors, who then assess the premiums of insuring such a structure, based on those assessments.

Scientists deal with theories, the theoretical. Businessmen and engineers have to work with what is practical, and cannot afford to just say that it seems right, and that if they are wrong, then science can learn. People die when science is wrong and has to learn. Businessmen and engineers have to pay for it. So they have to treat ALL theories are theoretical, because in their field, it is. In science, it's not just a theory, but a fact, because they are only considering the theoretical.

It's horses for courses.

RE Msg: 325 by Krebby2001:
The "guidance system" thing is provocative. As I've stated, I'm not a biology type but an acquaintance of mine (passed), S. J. Gould, once made casual reference to that term. We were at a baseball game, couple of Guiness's in my system, and all of that, but I remember (fuzzily) that he was writing a book on baseball hitters, and trying to answer the question of why there are not more .400 hitters in modern baseball as in yesteryear. The gist of his argument was that the assumption that the "target" of evolution, the "selection" phase is, more or less, uniform.. His premise was that the environment itself is changing in parameters "selected for;" therefore, one must not look only at "selection," but also at the flux in the environment itself -- he used this argument to write his book, explaining the "paradox" of seeming dearth of .400 hitters in professional baseball. Variation -- Selection -- Retention --- What is being "retained" as a good "fit" in 1939 is solidly not what might be "fit" in 2039. The "guidance system," for evolution, if you will, is working on multidimensional scaling far beyond that of a rocket propelled system. And it's working on three very complex "cylinders," not just one -- Variation, Selection, and Retention.
It's amazing that you write this, because I actually pointed out the same thing about religions:
2) Scriptures about G-d tend to state that G-d wants a certain method of behaviour, and that doesn't seem to change in any one type of scripture. Different types of scriptures seem to have a very common thread, such as the Golden Rule. G-d only seems to tell the prophets that the people need to improve, because the people are just not doing what G-d originally instructed in the first place, and still aren't yet. It's not so much about progress, as being given a fixed target in your office to meet, and rarely ever meeting that target. I guess you could call that "progress and improvement". But only in so far as you are STILL trying to make progress in getting a little bit better at doing what you were supposed to do from day one, but weren't.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts9492442.aspx
See Msg: 118.

I wrote this yesterday, about 24 hours ago. I hadn't seen your post. Yet, I came to the same idea, but based on what religions state.

This SAME idea is the basis of the claim that religions are dogmatic in nature. Yet, according to your testimony, it's exactly what Stephen Jay Gould, the noted historian of science, said himself. I find this amazing that science and religion can be so synchronous.

The "variation" portion is complex enough so that some "retained" genes, remaining, let's say, "dormant" in one phase of evolution, might be the very thing selected for and "retained" at another period.
Again interesting, because I have argued the very same thing about why we still have the genes for vitamin C synthesis, that on some level, they might be needed later on, and based my view on that only the genes used in the last stage of vitamin C synthesis are corrupted, even though the human body doesn't use any of the stages.

On a personal level, I don't have a problem with religion and science co-existing.
Then I think we could agree. At least, that is how I learned about science, that science deals with those matters that are secular, independent of the veracity of any religion, whether any be true or false. Science deals only with that which we could ALL agree with, no matter what. Or, at least, it is supposed to.

Earlier this year, a well known publishing company was revealed to have at least two "academic journals" that were "sponsored" by the very pharmaceutical companies that were producing the drugs that the authors in the journal were "evaluating."
I've seen this more than once, about published studies that stated that Skin Cancer was more dangerous, paid for by an organisation devoted to the study of skin cancer, that included sun-tan manufacturers amongst their main contributors to funding, and published studies that eating sugar was good for you, paid for by an organisation devoted to sugar, who included many sugar manufacturers amongst their members. It's my contention that science has become so useful and so relied upon, that now, large corporations pay for studies to be carried out that support an increase in the sales and promotion of their products. IMHO, scientific research has become commercialised.

I believe that if scientific research was funded by the people, independently of government or of large business, then it could be free of such problems as promoting only side of an issue that can be used for propaganda.

Up until a few years ago, we still had some scientists grabbing DOD dollars for studying "trauma" by subjecting cats to bullet injury to the head. It was proven over 30 years ago that the cat brain and the human brain are not similar enough to produce informative results. Fortunately, or maybe not, some of this investigatory energy turned to trauma centers like Cook County Hospital in Chicago (now defunct) -- plenty of gang bangers shooting each other in the head to serve as "data."
That is another problem. I've seen quite a few studies that seem to make claims not really supported by the evidence, or that actually prove something that is really quite obvious to most people, or even prove something that's actually already been proved before in previous studies. I think that because scientific research is now a stable career choice, that just like teaching, a lot of people can choose it, simply to get themselves a stable job, and simply pick subjects that they know will be considered acceptable research and acceptable results so they won't have to work too hard to do their job, and so they will be seen to be productive enough to keep their funding, but not enough of a breakthrough to be seen as revolutionary or crackpot, so their funding won't be threatened by being accused of wasting taxpayer money or wasting business investment. I know that seems quite extreme. But one of the undergrads I knew told me that's exactly what he did with his thesis, and quite a few undergrads did exactly that when it came to laying out conclusions in their essays, picking the conclusions that their lecturers would agree with, but at the same time, picking sources that they already knew made roughly the same claim, but tweaking them to make a new claim, but one that was easily in line with the basic combined view of all the sources that any of their fellow students had access to. It wasn't even in any way original. But it was made to sound original. By sounding original, but not being original, they gained high marks, without any actual contribution.

I would equally argue that if we can divorce science from a need to contribute a meaningful conclusion, but that ALL results, success OR failure, are deemed valuable, as long as they investigate things we don't already know, or to only confirm things hypothesised but not confirmed, then we have the opportunity to utilise that funding to far more productive purposes.

I mentioned the foregoing (I can perhaps think of others, but this is Saturday morning, I don't think that hard on Saturday), to say that Religion, if it could be entrusted, could play a role in serving as a Guidance System for science. Indeed, if Religion can be steered away from its present quest to "institutionalize" itself, it can play a central role, (along with others, of course). But I don't see much of a presence of Religion in such important bodies as the U. N., important civil and international bodies, etc.
I think it can. Obviously, not ALL religious people take a pluralistic view with a commitment to honesty. But SOME do. Many of the first people to study evolution were Anglican ministers. The father of genetics was a monk. I think that as long as we look at religious people, and decide who is going to be honest and fair about science, and who won't, then we can simply pick the people who are going to be honest and fair about science. We don't even have to follow their advice. But I think it would be very useful to at least listen to those religious leaders who can make a contribution to what directions of scientific research are best likely to help humanity.

One example I would recommend, that came from Bright1Raziel, a biologist, is saving your child's cord blood. It's embryonic cells, that come from your child. It can be used for ALL the advantages of embryonic stem cell treatments AND the advantages of adult stem cell treatments. It's not in any way furthering abortion, or messing with children. It has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Personally, I'd make it mandatory to save all people's cord blood for everyone. So far, ONE family did this recently. But really, it would be great as if it was mandatory, as the only people who would NOT want to use it are the JWs, and we could still use theirs for research.

Seriously. Save your children's cord blood. I will.

Instead, Religion, a philosophical base, and only a portion of it, insists on "replacing" science on such questions as creation. Science has no definitive means to squarely debunk the question of whether, at the very beginning of time, creation, whatever, someone said, "let there be life" and it, indeed, happened (even if in the form of a single cell). It DOES have the means to say, "All evidence indicates that the critter we now recognize as MAN, did not suddenly materialize in the form of a blond-haired hippie looking dude and in the form of women who looked like Stevie Nicks from Fleetwood Mac." The Garden of Eden portion is a moot point.

On the other hand, creationists insist that this is the case, often attempting to debunk scientific inquiry by manipulating scientific thinking such that it is "forced" to reveal evidence that is not available. The very philosophical system that is satisfied with the notion that some dude was able to stuff myriad critters into an ark no bigger than the new Texas Stadium (yay!) is now magically transformed into system that is powerful enough in logic/analysis to subsume Science in its totality, and to dictate, indeed arrest, scientific method. Ironically, philosophy of science enables scientific thinking, but the two are definitively not the same thing. One is a base; the other a branch.
The issue of non-scientific anti-evolutionist viewpoints is nearly only found in America, and nearly only found in Xianity. It's really not found much outside of that.

But the problem remains. Why does a tiny segment of humanity have such a large degree of control over scientific research? Why doesn't the UN have the control of scientific research? Why isn't the issue of religious problems with science being referred to a body that represents ALL meta-physical belief, atheist, agnostic, spiritual, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jainism, everyone?

Further, I've seen an expert political analyst of American politics and an expert analyst of American religious beliefs both say the same thing, that Americans hate complicated answers, even when they are the only right ones. Americans seem to favour simple answers, even when they know they are wrong.

When only one tiny portion of humanity controls what science is carried out, and what conclusions science makes, and that the majority of those people seem to prefer the simple answer over the truth, I think that science is bound to run aground.

I think we need to take face facts: America is NOT the world. America does NOT speak for the world. Americans are ONE group. They should NOT be allowed to control scientific research. ONLY the world should do that.

The only way to debunk this proclamation of creationism is for both sides to have definitive evidence. Perhaps, steered by Religion, Science can be "guided" to such a quest. And, in a way, Science is squarely asking the right questions in its quest to understand the universe. Both sides have to have faith that, some day, there will be definitive proof.

In the meantime, the two should be able to labor strenuously in their defined roles and not to belabor the point of their co-existence.
For the most part, they didn't, not outside America, and are only starting to do so in other countries like the UK, only since those countries' cultures and beliefs have been Americanised so much, their own cultures are being brought to extinction.

"Mommy, you gave me the red tootsie roll, I want the green one." "But I gave you the red one yesterday, Dear, and you said you didn't like it." "Yeah, but I want it now."
"Mommy, let's have steak for dinner." "But there are five of you, and the other four want fish and chips." (Child goes away. Smash! Bang! Wallop! The other children are crying.) "Not any more."
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 185
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/24/2009 3:35:32 PM

The issue of non-scientific anti-evolutionist viewpoints is nearly only found in America, and nearly only found in Xianity. It's really not found much outside of that.

But the problem remains. Why does a tiny segment of humanity have such a large degree of control over scientific research? Why doesn't the UN have the control of scientific research? Why isn't the issue of religious problems with science being referred to a body that represents ALL meta-physical belief, atheist, agnostic, spiritual, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jainism, everyone?

Further, I've seen an expert political analyst of American politics and an expert analyst of American religious beliefs both say the same thing, that Americans hate complicated answers, even when they are the only right ones. Americans seem to favour simple answers, even when they know they are wrong.

When only one tiny portion of humanity controls what science is carried out, and what conclusions science makes, and that the majority of those people seem to prefer the simple answer over the truth, I think that science is bound to run aground.

I think we need to take face facts: America is NOT the world. America does NOT speak for the world. Americans are ONE group. They should NOT be allowed to control scientific research. ONLY the world should do that.

The only way to debunk this proclamation of creationism is for both sides to have definitive evidence. Perhaps, steered by Religion, Science can be "guided" to such a quest. And, in a way, Science is squarely asking the right questions in its quest to understand the universe. Both sides have to have faith that, some day, there will be definitive proof.


Piss on your anti-Americanism. It's bigotry, pure and simple, and it's more than tiresome. Trust me, I could go on about Great Britain, if I were so inclined (and lost all sense of what's bigoted spew and what's not.)

Also, your oh-so-enlightened Brits do a lot of research, and the Germans, too. In fact, they do as much research as their governments and corporations will pay for, just like American scientists. They come up with pretty similar results, too. Why aren't THEY coming up with your vaunted "religion-guided" "complicated answers" after all this time? Is big, bad, America forcing them to research only certain topics and then only publish simple results? Awwwww....

However, if YOU want to say what gets researched, YOU pay for it. That's how it works. Go for it, bud.

It's reassuring, of course, to see that you do not try to conceal your authoritarian bias. Glad you're not in charge, 'cause you'd be a hell of a tyrant. Also, you talk too much. Get a hobby.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 186
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/24/2009 5:16:34 PM
RE Msg: 345 by desertrhino:
Piss on your anti-Americanism. It's bigotry, pure and simple, and it's more than tiresome.
I LIKE Americans. I always did. I used to defend Americans when my friends would say they were stupid. But when Americans start going to an extreme, then I'm going to point out they are.

Trust me, I could go on about Great Britain, if I were so inclined (and lost all sense of what's bigoted spew and what's not.)
I don't like a lot of the things we did. We invented concentration camps. We tested Mustard Gas on our own soldiers. We starved millions of Indians to death, when they had food to eat, all because we weren't willing to take a cut in our food quotas.

Also, your oh-so-enlightened Brits do a lot of research, and the Germans, too. In fact, they do as much research as their governments and corporations will pay for, just like American scientists. They come up with pretty similar results, too. Why aren't THEY coming up with your vaunted "religion-guided" "complicated answers" after all this time? Is big, bad, America forcing them to research only certain topics and then only publish simple results? Awwwww....
British science is going the same way. The UK has been adopting American practises for years. 7am meetings for employees. Proms in school. All sorts of things. It's even made it's inroads into British science. Microsoft has had a computing centre in Cambridge University for years. Corporations and governments have been manipulating British science for years. It's producing the same results.

However, if YOU want to say what gets researched, YOU pay for it. That's how it works. Go for it, bud.
I don't want that. What if I'm wrong? I only want to pay for research into subjects that might help the world, and the results get published, no matter what. I probably would, if I was rich. But I'm not.

It's reassuring, of course, to see that you do not try to conceal your authoritarian bias. Glad you're not in charge, 'cause you'd be a hell of a tyrant.
Thank you. I have a draconian approach. But the people I've taught told me that I'm a good teacher. Come to think of it, my bosses liked it too. So it seems to work for them.

Also, you talk too much. Get a hobby.
I have quite a few. But I always seem to talk more than people like.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 187
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/24/2009 5:33:23 PM
By the way, could you provide some references for your assertion that Americans only like simple answers (even when they know they're wrong)? Even just the names of these alleged political and religious analysts would be just great.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 188
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 9:51:39 AM
RE Msg: 347 by desertrhino:
By the way, could you provide some references for your assertion that Americans only like simple answers (even when they know they're wrong)? Even just the names of these alleged political and religious analysts would be just great.
I don't quite recall them. But I'm sure that you can find the interviews somewhere online. One was interviewed by Simon Schama during the Obama election. One was interviewed by Stephen Fry on the subject of religion in his series on America. If I remember right, he was the head of religious studies at Harvard. I remember he was gay, and African American, if that helps.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 189
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 11:31:26 AM
Mona - Any scientist who believes in YEC (Young earth creationism) will be laughed out of the scientific world. They are not only disagreeing with biology, but every scientific field to date. You can't, with a straight face, say the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old and think you should be taken seriously.
You say that it is foolish to disagree with the bible, but the bible talks nonsense when it refers to bats as birds.

Do you think bats are birds? Or are they rats with wings? Are bats mammals? If you believe bats are mammals, you too disagree with what the bible says and thus, you are also what you condemn.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 190
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 12:13:20 PM
have accepted the biblical account of creation and can scientifically defend their position:

Pick the best scientific defense of the bunch and give us a link to refu...I mean critique it as to its scientific validity.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 191
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 12:23:06 PM
What degree did each get their degree in?

Where did you get that list from? Did you get that list from discovery institute? lol

Oh wait.. You should watch this. =)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

EDIT:

<div class='quote'>And Dr. Thomas Yi, Ph.D., is both a Creationist and an Aerospace & Mechanical Engineer. Do we even know what that means? Really? Aerospace Engineer? ;)
Aerospace and Mechanical engineer means that they aren't qualified to make a scientific decision on a school of study that isn't their own. Who cares if they are a mechanical engineer. It only matters if they are a BIOLOGIST and they STILL believe in creationism. THAT is what you must look for. Otherwise they just dont have enough knowledge to make a good judgement on creationism vs evolution.


EDIT EDIT: - I recreated your list for you..


Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology


It looks considerably smaller, huh? That is out of all the biologists in the world... And I am not even sure those biologists actually believe in creationism or not? Their name might just be used as a way to get more names on the list. Very dishonest tactic.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 192
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 12:38:46 PM
I just get a little tired of the argumentum ad verecundiam. I think it's high time to demonstrate just how unscientific the creationist position really is. Many religious people are taken in by some "expert's" supposed scientific credentials. Frankly I'm tired of it. Let's see how much science these clowns use as far as justifying their belief.

The challenge stands!
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 193
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 12:54:46 PM

I think all creationist myths can be debunked by anybody with a mediocre intelligence and an open mind.
Let me provide a list of some modern scientists who, I dare say, have much more than "mediocre intelligence" and who have accepted the biblical account of creation and can scientifically defend their position:
You haven't rebuked my claim at all. I never said that there were no intelligent people that believe in creationism. I said that anyone with a mediocre intelligence can debunk creationist myths, and I still believe they can.
If someone with a PhD says that 2 + 2 = 9 that doesn't make it true, and when those people on that list say that the bible is right and the earth is wrong it doesn't make that true either. So if you compile a list of people with great credentials that believe in ridiculous lies it doesn't make those lies true. I base the worth of a position on the merit of its argument, not on the credentials of the ones making the claim.

99% or more of biologists accept evolution instead of creation - so if you think credentials are what it takes to make a position true then your own reasoning shows creationism to be false.

And just so you know, the people on that list (or rather, the ones that are still alive and are on that list) can't intelligently defend their position.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 194
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 1:45:14 PM
RE Msg: 350 by Funcuz:
Maintaining that science and religion must be in agreement , frankly , makes no sense. Why would they have to be in agreement at all for one or both to be right or wrong ?
I quite agree. They don't. But that doesn't mean that science is automatically right, either.

We know there could never have been a flood that covered the entire planet. How does that make science wrong ? It doesn't.
It doesn't. But I'm beginning to wonder about that. I was discussing this with a friend of mine who doesn't believe in the Bible, or the Koran, or any scripture. He's of the opinion that the flood happened, because every culture has a flood-legend, including South American Indians, and the Chinese, both of whom don't hold by the Bible at all. It reminded me of reading my father's Sunday Time book of the myths and legends from all over the Earth. I had found as a child that every culture had a flood-legend. One would expect that if there was no global flood, that such a legend would only be found in a minority of groups, or at least some, where that minority spread. But not every culture, not to this extent.

It really makes me wonder what the probability is of such a false legend being so widespread, across so many cultures that had almost no contact for centuries.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 195
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 1:50:48 PM
Scorp - The same reason how religion spread. The idea or notion of God was originally in an African tribe which began to split off and migrate from each other. They kept the same stories from their past but added on to them. PLUS every culture around the world has experienced flooding. You are using a causal link fallacy where you are saying that since every culture has a flood story, that there must of been a world wide flood when in actuality it could very well be that every culture has a flood story do to every culture experiencing floods.
Correlation does not equate to causation.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 196
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 2:16:57 PM
RE Msg: 360 by Verzen:
Scorp - The same reason how religion spread. The idea or notion of God was originally in an African tribe which began to split off and migrate from each other. They kept the same stories from their past but added on to them. PLUS every culture around the world has experienced flooding. You are using a causal link fallacy where you are saying that since every culture has a flood story, that there must of been a world wide flood when in actuality it could very well be that every culture has a flood story do to every culture experiencing floods.
Correlation does not equate to causation.
Yes. But neither does your claim about G-d. That lots of people believe in G-d, doesn't mean at all that G-d was in an African tribe, and that split off and carried it elsewhere. You have no proof of that. If you wanted to claim that correlation equated to causation, then it still wouldn't fit, because somewhere between 230 million and 1.6 billion people are Buddhists, and Buddhism really doesn't include ANY concept of G-d at all.

Anyway, it STILL doesn't fit. We'd expect some flood stories, to be sure. But we'd expect that some places had a story of giant wave that flooded the world. We'd expect that other stories had a story of a giant "world-shake", that opened up huge fissures and killed lots of people. We'd expect a story that 90% of the world were killed by fire ants or by some insects. For every type of common disaster, we'd expect a story about that killing most of the world. But we don't. We only see stories about floods. We don't even hear about stories about giant waves. That's very odd.

You're equating your own experiences about people lying to you, as being a form of causation, when it's really a form of correlation.

I'm simply wondering what the probability is that such a unique story is repeated in so many cultures, is wrong, and if the Sun came up every day, would we say it's just a correlation as well.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 197
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 2:38:08 PM
neither does your claim about G-d.

He wasn't making a claim about a god of any description. The subject of the thread is debunking myths of creation. Don't try to create a strawman.


That's very odd

Not really when you think about it. Human communities grew up near oceans, lakes and rivers (convenient source of water and food). What probably happened to water levels pretty well everywhere at the end of the ice age? I dare say those people had to move to higher ground. The idea of a worldwide flood could easily be a universal one because virtually all human cultures probably experienced it about 12,000 years ago. (or about 6,000 years before the earth was created).


I'm simply wondering what the probability is that such a unique story is repeated in so many cultures, is wrong

I'd say it's pretty high. How much does a story change by the time its passed through about 10 retellings? Imagine what thousands of them could do to a story.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 198
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 4:19:33 PM
Most creation myths that I have heard of tell of the evolution of order out of chaos using the cultural metaphors of culture and Age.

Sounds about right to me.

Yester years Creation yarns might not be too much good when one has such goals as putting a man on the moon or otherwsie manipulating nature, but then, the scientific view isn't much good when it comes to forming a relationship between man and his environment.

Not that SOME people don't find the measurments of science to be deeply, even spiritually meaningful, but trying to compare it to the ability of religion is like saying science can give us greater insight into ... love and passion for instance. Science can provide us with the bare bones of what is going on, psychophysically, but compared to the poets explanation, the cold science falls falt and meaningless.

The biggest problem with Creationists, which is muchly the same as the problem with their atheist counterparts, is the egotistical assertion that only their view holds validity ... in fact, the belief that only one answer CAN hold any/the most validity.

Of course, different people relate to similar and different things differently, but the relationship of each can be equally valid.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 199
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 4:29:22 PM
RE Msg: 362 by JustDukky:

neither does your claim about G-d.
He wasn't making a claim about a god of any description. The subject of the thread is debunking myths of creation.
Actually, if you read his post, he was making an unproved claim about G-d, then using that to make another claim about stories about creation.

Don't try to create a strawman.
I'm not. This isn't even about creationist myths. Creationism is a particular viewpoint that occurs in America, and has nothing to do with my point. Someone else brought in the flood story. I responded to it. Verzen dropped in his usual unfounded beliefs. Now you're trying to bring the irrelevancy argument to bear on me, when it really was about either mentioning the flood story in the first place, or about making an unfounded claim about how the beliefs in G-d came about.

Not really when you think about it. Human communities grew up near oceans, lakes and rivers (convenient source of water and food). What probably happened to water levels pretty well everywhere at the end of the ice age? I dare say those people had to move to higher ground. The idea of a worldwide flood could easily be a universal one because virtually all human cultures probably experienced it about 12,000 years ago. (or about 6,000 years before the earth was created).
You're basically saying there was a global flood, when the ice age ended? Sorry, but doesn't that kinda contradict the point you're trying to make?

Anyway, surely if there were floods all over, but only at different places at different times, then as we know the people would have had to move to survive, then they would all have known that the floods were not global, and then there would have been stories in every culture of how the people were "driven by the flood to the promised land". So we'd STILL have no stories of a global flood.

Try again. You're still not giving an explanation with how stories change and develop.


I'm simply wondering what the probability is that such a unique story is repeated in so many cultures, is wrong
I'd say it's pretty high. How much does a story change by the time its passed through about 10 retellings?
The way they're shown on TV? The story is always being portrayed as nothing alike. IRL? When was the last time someone fire-bombed your house, because you once talked to someone, and that became you talking to a child, and that became you giving a lift to your child, and that became you abducting a child, and that became you being a child-abductor, and that became you running a child abduction ring, and that became you being the head of an organisation of child abductors that stretches right across the world, making you more evil than Hitler?

I got from you talking to one person, to being more evil than Hitler, in 6 short jumps. Easily less than 10. According to the Chinese Whispers argument, considering how many people talk to other people, there should be loads of people being accused of running a child abduction ring, with no evidence at all, on that basis. That's not what happens at all.

But I can tell you the sort of things that DO happen.

1) People regularly get their houses fire-bombed, if the police arrest them in a case of child abuse as a suspect, and release them, even when they were totally vindicated, and found that it was 100% definitely not them.

2) Recently, a woman was attacked, because people mistook the word "paediatrician" for "paedophile".

Yes, a lot of people DO make these sort of assumptions. Does everyone? Did you recently ask the police why they aren't arresting doctors for "paediatrilia"? A FEW people make stupid mistakes. But by and large, most people correct them, because they usually go a lot further than just adulterating a few stories. They usually set your kids alight.

The only times they aren't corrected, is normally when everyone else makes so many mistakes, that they think they're justified. But in those places, you see a lot of very nasty things happening, like their countries invading other countries on the basis that WMDs will attack their own country in 45 minutes, then reveal that this argument was made on the basis of a student's essay, and then admit that the country never had any WMDs, not at the time they were supposed to.

Chinese Whispers are ASSUMED to happen always. But when it comes down to it, people only cherry-pick the situations in which we say that Chinese Whispers ever happen. We aren't consistent about them. We don't approach them scientifically. If we did, then we'd be able to use the argument more reliably. But we don't, so we can't.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 200
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/26/2009 4:35:05 PM

Statement: I'm simply wondering what the probability is that such a unique story is repeated in so many cultures, is wrong

Response: I'd say it's pretty high. How much does a story change by the time its passed through about 10 retellings? Imagine what thousands of them could do to a story.


Depends upon culture and medium. A culture that cultivates a literary tradition, such as our own, is not as inclined to place as much importance on the spoken word as an oral culture; and is not inclined to imagine that other cultures might place much greater value on even casual conversation.

Of course that kind of anthropology was blown out of the water a very long time ago, and is itself "superstitious".

Between an oral cultures inherently great vlaue of the spoken word, and then the poetic traditions that carry some of the most important information, there simply is no comparison with the modern grapevine you compare it to.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths