Oort cloud & Kuiper belt Arguments-


The Talkorgins site does a near-prefect job of refuting this bit of nonsense so I will simply post the response from that site:


Response:
As of June 2000, more than 250 objects in the Kuiper Belt have been observed directly [Buie 2000], and it alone can be the source of short-term comets.

The Oort cloud has not been observed directly (although Sedna, a planetoid discovered in March 2004, might be in the Oort cloud), but its presence is well supported based on observations of long-period comets.

If there were no source for new comets to come from, all comets would have the same age. They don't. Some are young and have lots of gasses; others are little more than gravel heaps.
Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof3
References:
Buie, Marc W., 2000. A deep ecliptic survey for Kuiper Belt objects. NOAO Newsletter 62 (June 2000), http://www.noao.edu/noao/noaonews/jun00/node2.html "polystrate" tree fossils -


Again, teh answers can be found with a quick trip to the Talkorgins site:

Here is a link to the FAQ/ Article on this creationist chestnut:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html


The kicker is that the term "Polystrate" is not even a geological term! It was made up by creationists!


I was about to write a lenghty piece debunking a ton of common creationist arguments(not using the talkorgins site for the rest of it. I have been reading up on the subject more than usual in the last 24 hours) but I have the sinking feeling it would be ignored anyway. SO rather than do that, we can let this thread be the thread for posting challenges to evolution(or creationism but that is so easy it is beneath me right now).

Fire away!

[ April 23, 2004, 01:56: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

I once asked a friend of mine, who believes in Creationism, how there could be ancient fossils if the world was made in 4004 BCE. For his response, he looked at me as if I was mad, and said, "Have you never heard of tests of faith?"

The point of the above is to show that your arguments are nothing to a Creationist. A similar response would be given. The response will always be along the lines of "God did it."

The true weakness of Creationism is that the theories are formed using ad hoc arguments, and modify the argument so that it arrives at the conclusion they desire. When an argument appears that would pose a problem to their theory, it is incorporated as a work of God, or dismissed as a temptation by Satan.

Also, they often give God credit for unexplained events. This is referred to as "God of the Gaps," and overall weakens the Creationist viewpoint, especially when later such events can be explained.

Thus, it is the method with which Creationists defend their ideas that weakens them, not so much the content itself. Creationism is not a view shared by all Christians. I myself am Christian, and I still think Creationism is wrong.

Don't usually respond to AoDA threads that have a such a self serving title...as if belief in the existence of God is "bunked". :rolleyes: :hmm:

If you take the time to read what I have said in numerous other threads...I am not a Scientific Creationist...never have been...never will be. I believe in the existence of God...I acknowledge the presence of "evolutionary forces" in our world, and recognize them as a tool in the hand of the Creator. In fact, my biggest beef with Evolutionists is that they purport a "theory" as a "fact"...and that's a lie...a great big one. Further, I have said on numerous occaisions that Atheism is as much a system of faiths and beliefs as Hinduism, Shamanism or Catholicism...and no atheist can ever prove otherwise.

It does little good to post responses from a partisan site to support your partisan stance, although it's what you'll do. Evolutionary theory as the genesis behind the existence of life and it's diversity can not be proven, nor will it ever be...and it is stupid to try to meet you point for point, or link for link, because everything that you can put up that says I'm wrong can be countered by something by me.

I have an incredibly open view toward science and religion, and a respect for whatever belief system a person "uses" to accomodate their life...probably too much so to engage in this debate.

chev...you can have em' now :evil:

@ Hacken Slash

You view the term "theory" in totally the wrong light. It seems like your definition of "theory" is "something that may or may not be true". Actually, most theories are as close to fact as one could possibly get.

For a few examples:

The Theory of Gravity
The Theory of Conservation of Mass (aka that in a reaction, matter cannot be either created nor destroyed)
Molecular Theory
Chromosomal Theory
Theory of Relativity

The Theory of Evolution is in this same group. No, they don't have the "fact" lable slapped on them (not that any such term exists in science - such things are referred to as Laws), but there isn't much doubt in their truth.

You seem to use "theory" in the way most scientists would use the term "hypothesis", and trust me the two are very, very different things.

Unrepentant heretics, er... I mean, beloved brothers, please allow me to show you the error of your ways:

1. The age of comets and the existence of some fossil have no bearing on the question of whether the spark of life comes from God or not. In short, there's no contradiction between that and the claim of universe being created by God and life being given from God.

2. The Theory of Gravity, The Theory of Conservation of Mass (aka that in a reaction, matter cannot be either created nor destroyed), Molecular Theory, Chromosomal Theory, Theory of Relativity and many others bear no such contradiction, either.

In fact, I would say that the Theory of Conservation of Mass is more of proof to creationism than otherwise. How? Look:

Matter cannot be created or destroyed in a reaction => matter that exists does not originate from a reaction. Must have been some other way, mustn't it? You'd better start praying for your poor soul! It's not too late yet! :shake: :good: :holy:

Debunking creationismDebunking? Better than you have attempted and failed. I find it quite amusing that you aren't even able assemble a more or less coherent counterargument and yet you speak about debunking :D

You view the term "theory" in totally the wrong light. It seems like your definition of "theory" is "something that may or may not be true".Theory is well substantiated explanation of a certain aspect of physical world. A special stress is on explanation. It basically means that a theory is an attempt at explaining why certain things happen in a certain way. That those things happen is true, but that's no news. You get a ready conclusion and start seeking premises that would match it, which is potentially fallible inductional inference. Therefore, there's no warranty that such an explanation is true.

Actually, most theories are as close to fact as one could possibly get.There's no such thing as "close to fact". It only shows how strongly you believe in something, but come on, that's hardly scientific! A fact is something true. Boolean 1 as opposed to 0, false. There's nothing in between. You can calculate probability, but your probability of 0.9 becomes 0 if it doesn't happen, and your probability of 0.1 becomes 1 once it has happened. In short: no fact here.

I tend to view such debates as dubious. Both sides have strong views and tend not to like the other's. Evolution cannot explain where life came from. Just how it got from A to B. The closest science has got is in creating a protein, by zapping all of the components with large amounts of electricity. However, religeon has numerous inconsitancies that don't fit for me.
Whilst I'm an unreformed athiest, I would dearly like to discover that rock that says: "made by God". We have devloped a unique characteristic that allows us to recognise our "self". Still, on topic, I don't think science can ever disprove religeon until it actually creates life out of nothing. On the flipside, I don't believe religeon can say we are here because of some supreme force, and show some book somebody came up with as proof of it.
In conclusion: If you want to debunk religeon come up with life. Plain and simple. But you religeon people are going to have to offer more than faith to ultimately win over a waning viewpoint.

@ chev

Well put, friend. You, ah, have forgiven me for putting you in the thong, haven't you? I only did it because I knew you could take it. ;)

@Aldeth

I understand your point also...perhaps I have played fast and loose with the definition and use of the word theory...in fact when evolution is compared to the theories of gravity and conservation of mass, it slips down to hypothesis . When it is compared to the second Law of thermodynamics, it falls all the way to bad hypothesis , which is all that I've asserted from the begining.

[edit] @ takara
I would dearly like to discover that rock that says: "made by God". Is that all you need? Easy...just look at any US currency!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[ April 22, 2004, 00:08: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

The atmosphere of the early Earth was actually very conducive to large organic molecules forming spontaneously. The early atmosphere only had trace quantities of oxygen while volcanic vapors were much more present. This caused the atmosphere to act as a reducing agent rather than the oxidizing atmosphere we have today. What this means is that the atmosphere would donate electrons to molecules rather than take them away. This allowed large molecules to form spontaneously.

Also, RNA is used both to store genetic information as well as to create the proteins with which the RNA encodes. Even more intriguing, RNA may self-replicate as well as cleave itself. This makes the formation of RNA as probably the first chemical development of life as we would recognize.

Edit...Matter can certainly be destroyed in a reaction. Your life depends on this Chev.

Evolutionary and geological processes just seem to make more sense to me than pure Creationist ones. But I freely admit that I don't have much more evidence for either, personally. So I agree that my 'beliefs' require a considerable amount of 'faith'.

The atmosphere of the early Earth was actually very conducive to large organic molecules forming spontaneously. The early atmosphere only had trace quantities of oxygen while volcanic vapors were much more present. This caused the atmosphere to act as a reducing agent rather than the oxidizing atmosphere we have today. What this means is that the atmosphere would donate electrons to molecules rather than take them away. This allowed large molecules to form spontaneously.Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously.


Also, RNA is used both to store genetic information as well as to create the proteins with which the RNA encodes. Even more intriguing, RNA may self-replicate as well as cleave itself. This makes the formation of RNA as probably the first chemical development of life as we would recognize.Still, it's no less a medium of genetic information, tightly tied to life forms. In a way, no life forms means no RNA.

Edit...Matter can certainly be destroyed in a reaction. Your life depends on this Chev. ?

Edit...Matter can certainly be destroyed in a reaction. Your life depends on this Chev. That depends on how relativistic you want to be. It is true that matter is conserved in chemical reactions. It is not true in nuclear reactions (such as in the Sun which is why your life depends on it :) ), unless you consider the equivalence of matter and energy.

Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously.
Actually, late-night thinker is correct. There have been experiments that show elemental matter blasted with UV light (which would be in excess in an atmosphere-less Earth) can become amino acids (the building blocks of proteins). I'll try to track down a ref.

Edit:

In 1953 Stanley Miller did a pioneering experiment on the matter.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.
Chev, 'Human Science' has only known for over half a century. :o

[ April 22, 2004, 04:10: Message edited by: Ankiseth_Vanir ]

I admit to being a little confused. What exactly is creationism? If creationism is that God created everything in six days and watched football on the seventh, then I do not believe in that for I feel the scientific evidence shows otherwise. If creationism is that God put all of the ingredients into the mixer and started it up, that I do believe in. But then again, I may not have religion, but I have faith.

@HackenSlash:


Don't usually respond to AoDA threads that have a such a self serving title...as if belief in the existence of God is "bunked".What does belief in God have to do with whether creationism is bunk or evolution is true? The thread was not titled "Debunking God".

If you take the time to read what I have said in numerous other threads...I am not a Scientific CreationistThere is no such animal. Creationism meets NONE of the criteria of science. Calling it a hypothesis would be too generous...let alone a theory.


...never have been...never will be. I believe in the existence of God...I acknowledge the presence of "evolutionary forces" in our world, and recognize them as a tool in the hand of the Creator.Then you are an evolutionist and welcome! Msot people who do not deny the process of evolution ARE theists(Christians in THIS country)! Evolution is no more atheistic than gravitation!


In fact, my biggest beef with Evolutionists is that they purport a "theory" as a "fact"...and that's a lie...a great big one.This has been corrected by both Aldeth AND Chev' so I won't spend much time on it. So long as you realize that theories are NOT rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty. They are explanations of observed phenomenae/facts/laws.


Further, I have said on numerous occaisions that Atheism is as much a system of faiths and beliefs as Hinduism, Shamanism or Catholicism...and no atheist can ever prove otherwise.This is so full of fallacies I don't know where to begin...


1)Atheism is NOT evolution.

2)Atheism is NOT a religion, a worldview, a collection of beliefs or positions etc. It is a simple response to a particular question/statement about the existence of gods.

Can THEISM be "a religion". Caqn you compare THEISM to hinudism, buddhism etc.? Of course not. it would make no sense to do so(like comparing "mechanical engineering to "A buick" and saying "A buick can never design a better robot!")

It does little good to post responses from a partisan site to support your partisan stance, although it's what you'll do.How does the talkorgins site qualify as a "partisan site"? Simply because they present scientific information which refutes the garbage YOU have been told? How can they ever be seen as a "non-partisan" information site besides throwing the proverbial hadns up and saying "FIne! Creationsim is the scientific truth!"(even if it is not)? You must substantiate such charges friend. You must show us how exactly, the Talkorgins site is wrong factaually/scientifically as well as evidence of how and why they made such errors or deliberate attempts at obfuscation/deception.


Evolutionary theory as the genesis behind the existence of lifeWrong again. Evolution is not the "genensis" of anything! You are stuck on this idea of evolution as some competing God whom scientists are claiming created the universe in teh ansence of your God doing so.

This is nosense. Evolution ONLY pertains to speciation/biodiversity AFTER the building blocks are already in place.


and it's diversity can not be proven, nor will it ever be...That is a pretty gnostic statemetn there! To claim that the truth of something is not and CAN NEVER BE KNOWN?! How would you know unless you are omniscient yourself?


Must be a "faith thing" eh? IF "faith" is so great then WHY are you guys always accusing US(atheists/skeptics/scientists etc.) of relying on faith as if it were the equivalent of getting information from the Weekly World News or believing urban legends.

Seems you guys don't even think very highly of "faith".


and it is stupid to try to meet you point for point, or link for link, because everything that you can put up that says I'm wrong can be countered by something by me.Try me. I have refuted YOUR nonsense left and right adn you have spent time and effort throwing words back at me but you refuse(or are unable) to refute a single thing I have said or linked to. As usual we get excuses from creationists for why they cannot do something but that is about it.

I have an incredibly open view toward science and religion, and a respect for whatever belief system a person "uses" to accomodate their life...probably too much so to engage in this debate.Fine! Let's make a deal then; you don't post anti-science nonsense and I won't debunk your religious beliefs masquerading as science!

Remember I did not create this thread in a vacuum buddy.

chev...you can have em' nowOh I'm getting to him shortly... ;)


@Hackenslash:


When it is compared to the second Law of thermodynamics, it falls all the way to bad hypothesis , which is all that I've asserted from the begining.See this is exactly the type of nonsense I am talking about. Are you familiar with Answers in Genesis or the ICR? They are probably the two most prominent creationist/anti-evolutionist organisations out there and THEY THEMSELVES advise christians NOT to bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument because it is purely bunk and easily refuted!

I will not bother doing so here because it is not clear WHICH creationist angle you are comingt from when you say that evolution violates the 2nd LoT. Some creationists argue that there is no room for increasing order so evolution violates the 2nd LoT there(easily refuted by pointing up at the sun or freezing, thawing and refreezing ice cubes), others have outright bizarre misunderstansings of the laws of thermodynamics(some mix up the 2nd and 1st LoT's for example).

Evolution is a THEORY, not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is NOT supported by the necessary experiment, testing that a theory must undergo. Evolutionary theory makes predictions(all of which has panned out so far!), is tested regularly, is revised often enough adn is one of the absolute best supported theroeis in science! More evidence for evolution than there is for GRAVITY!!

But they don't teach you that on TBN...I ownder why?


@Chev':


Unrepentant heretics, er... I mean, beloved brothers, please allow me to show you the error of your ways:

1. The age of comets and the existence of some fossil have no bearing on the question of whether the spark of life comes from God or not. In short, there's no contradiction between that and the claim of universe being created by God and life being given from God.Exactly! Please make sure Brother Hackenslash gets the memo!

2. The Theory of Gravity, The Theory of Conservation of Mass (aka that in a reaction, matter cannot be either created nor destroyed), Molecular Theory, Chromosomal Theory, Theory of Relativity and many others bear no such contradiction, either.

In fact, I would say that the Theory of Conservation of Mass is more of proof to creationism than otherwise. How? Look:

Matter cannot be created or destroyed in a reaction => matter that exists does not originate from a reaction. Must have been some other way, mustn't it? You'd better start praying for your poor soul! It's not too late yet!Even if this WERE true(the part about matter not being created or destroyed in a reaction) what you are offering here is a "God of the gaps" argument. "We don't know how *This* is done so God must have done it!" .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debunking creationism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Debunking? Better than you have attempted and failed.Not true. Creationism has been debunked time and again to the same extent that ANYTHING has been "debunked". Creationists denying this are no more than modern equivalents to the flat-earthers and geocentrists of a few hundred years ago.


I find it quite amusing that you aren't even able assemble a more or less coherent counterargument and yet you speak about debunking Because I have to be presented with an ARGUMENT first Chev'. As I stated in the op of this thread, my initial thought was to offer a lenghty "counterarguemtn" to arguments whihc no one had yet presented(having already refuted a ton of stuff by Hacken' and others) but that seemed wrong and presumptuous.


Theory is well substantiated explanation of a certain aspect of physical world. A special stress is on explanation. It basically means that a theory is an attempt at explaining why certain things happen in a certain way. That those things happen is true, but that's no news. You get a ready conclusion and start seeking premises that would match it, which is potentially fallible inductional inference. Therefore, there's no warranty that such an explanation is true.Yes...we ALL must proceed from certain axioms. Every single one of us. For some, everything is an illusion and nothing can be known. For others, ideas are the primary stuff of the universe and matter is a by-product of ideas.

Science proceeds from a MATERIALIST axiom for the same reason that there are no "touchdowns" in baseball. SO far this is proving to be a smart and productive position. We are able to make discoveries, which lead to even greater discoveries, ad infinitum.
In the "anything is possible" universe(of solopsists and, to an extent idealists), nothing can be known or consistent or lead to anything else.

I do not count axioms as "presuppositions". "Presuppositions" occur AFTER axioms have been chosen/decided upon and are often contrary to those very axioms! Someone who believes the material world is pretty much as we observed it to be(matter would exist regardless of whether or how I was able to percieve it) will commit presuppostional errors in thinking when they assert that a "soul" exists(or other dimensions for that matter if not following rules of inference).




There's no such thing as "close to fact".Sure there is. If my car disappears while I am in a coffee shop in Seattle, one of the follwoing will likely be "closer to fact" than the other(S):

1) A magical fairy turned my car into a parking meter.

2)Someone stole my car.

3) My car was towed.


None of the above could be "disproven" but one or more will be more likely true and conform to reality as we observe it. One or more of the above will be "closer to fact".


It only shows how strongly you believe in something, but come on, that's hardly scientific! A fact is something true. Boolean 1 as opposed to 0, false. There's nothing in between. You can calculate probability, but your probability of 0.9 becomes 0 if it doesn't happen, and your probability of 0.1 becomes 1 once it has happened. In short: no fact here. No, no, no...true that a "fact" will be a fact regardless of whether we know it or not(or what we may believe) but explanations offereed in lieu of knowing will be "close" or "not so close" to fact.

[ April 22, 2004, 22:03: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

Gee, a guy is away for a little while, and watch a thread blow up.

First to respond to Chev. Yes, he is correct. Something is either true or it isn't. There's no in between gray area here. What I'm saying is that most theories cannot be tested under every theoretical condition. However, all of these "theories" have been supported by every test they've been put through. My "as close as you can get" comment simply meant that they have strong backing and have never been disproven (else they wouldn't be theories) and so all evidence we have points to them as being fact. So I should say is they are as close to being proven as we can realistically ever hope to get. They are NOT close to being a fact however, as "almost a fact" is a nonsensical term.

Now to Hacken Slash. First, evolution isn't a hypothesis. Secondly, just as "almost a fact" is nonsensical, so is "bad hypothesis". A hypothesis is an attempted explanation for something. If it is supported time and time again, it gets promoted to theory. If in a single case you find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, it doesn't become a bad hypothesis. It becomes wrong, and thus ceases to be a hypothesis.

Finally, I mis-spoke in my first thread. I should have said Conservation of Mass - and that does happen, even in the sun.

Just to be off-topically clear on the Conservation of Mass and nuclear fusion in the Sun. When light nuclei fuse, the combined nuclear mass is less than the mass of the original nuclei, so there is indeed a loss of mass.

The thing is, the decrease in mass comes off in the form of energy released. So, all that energy coming out of the Sun is due to the conversion of mass to energy in nuclear fusion reactions.

I see someone's really asking for bloodshed. May it be.

1. Chev, 'Human Science' has only known for over half a century.It is sort of natural that if you dabble with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, you get all sorts of carbohydrates, aldehydes, alcoholes, amino acids and so on. Now show me how that's life. It's no news that human body is made of atoms just like everything else - heck, it has to be!

2. Exactly! Please make sure Brother Hackenslash gets the memo!I don't understand. I claim that all of so called scientific evidence you and your supporters provide is no evidence at all since basically none of that contradicts the possibility of there being God and you agree with me?

3. Even if this WERE true(the part about matter not being created or destroyed in a reaction) what you are offering here is a "God of the gaps" argument. "We don't know how *This* is done so God must have done it!" .I was not making any statements, claims or conclusions of my own. I merely concentrated on the logic used in an argument supplied by the opposition.

If matter cannot be destroyed or originated in a reaction, then whatever matter exists does not originate from a reaction. Therefore, it was not made from something. Therefore, it was made from nothing. Therefore, it was created. Tadaaa... Note that it's not my own idea, it's directly inferred from a genuine anti-creationist argument raised in this discussion.

4. Not true. Creationism has been debunked time and again to the same extent that ANYTHING has been "debunked". Creationists denying this are no more than modern equivalents to the flat-earthers and geocentrists of a few hundred years ago.That's one nice piece of propaganda, but it's nothing scientific. None of your supposed evidence is able to contradict creationism and prove itself true at one time. It must both prove itself true and contradict creationism in order to disprove creationism.

In short: faith is not enough ;) I'm not going to exchange one faith for another. All so called evidence ultimately amounts to "oh come on, God can't exist!". I'm not going to exhange one belief for another. Give me facts. I mean, real facts. Not relying for major part on my good will to accept them, but real facts.

5. Because I have to be presented with an ARGUMENT first Chev'. As I stated in the op of this thread, my initial thought was to offer a lenghty "counterarguemtn" to arguments whihc no one had yet presented(having already refuted a ton of stuff by Hacken' and others) but that seemed wrong and presumptuous.Allow me please to show you the error of your ways:

You don't have to be presented with any arguments. If you claim you can debunk creationism - mind you, not even disprove it, but totally make the very idea look ridiculous - it's your job to prove your claim. And I shall be the judge of your efforts ;)

6. Yes...we ALL must proceed from certain axioms. Every single one of us.This basically means that each of us has his own faith. You believe in something, I believe in something. Technically, your belief is no more rational than mine and vice versa. You believe in theories for which you have poor proof and I believe in revelations for which I have poor proof. Welcome to the world of faith.

7. Sure there is. If my car disappears while I am in a coffee shop in Seattle, one of the follwoing will likely be "closer to fact" than the other(S):

1) A magical fairy turned my car into a parking meter.

2)Someone stole my car.

3) My car was towed.

None of the above could be "disproven" but one or more will be more likely true and conform to reality as we observe it. One or more of the above will be "closer to fact".

No, no, no...true that a "fact" will be a fact regardless of whether we know it or not(or what we may believe) but explanations offereed in lieu of knowing will be "close" or "not so close" to fact.Shhh... Not so fast. Something is either fact or non-fact. One or zero. I won't repeat myself over and over again, but probability is one and actual state of reality is another. Something that is not fact, is either untrue or a subjective impression, opinion or any other kind of evaluation. If your cat has got towed, it looks like this:

My car has been towed. 1
My car has been stolen. 0
My car has been abducted and impregnated by a giant space hamster fairy. 0

The first one is true and the other two are false. That simply has not happened.

0 = 0, roger.

It is sort of natural that if you dabble with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, you get all sorts of carbohydrates, aldehydes, alcoholes, amino acids and so on. Now show me how that's life. It's no news that human body is made of atoms just like everything else - heck, it has to be! Very good point Chev, but you are not taking the next logical step. The atmosphere is entirely made of the four elements you mentioned. Nature dabbles creating the larger molecules you mentioned by the chemistry of oxidation/reduction. Now here is the thing. Within a few hundred million years of the Earth cooling, life had formed. Geologically that sounds quick, but it is still hundreds of millions of years! That is a long time to "dabble" and clearly nature was capable of spontaneously creating life because it happened as you or I can attest.

Also, you do not understand the significance of RNA. DNA is transcribed into RNA before becoming the template for large proteins. DNA and RNA are virtually identical except for the addition of an extra oxygen in the sugar portion of RNA and the switching out of two nitrogenous bases...from thymine in DNA to uracil in RNA. DNA's purpose is somewhat redundant as RNA could and does handle the responsibility of passing on genetic information. It does this in transit from DNA to the ribosomes (which create proteins) and as an aside, a large number of viruses do not contain DNA, but rely entirely on RNA as the medium of inheritence.

It is also significant that the ribosomes which produce protein are themselves made almost entirely out of RNA! DNA may be the organic molecule which garners fame, but it is RNA which is actually the true face of Earth's life. If RNA formed spontaneously, which is possible in a reducing atmosphere, it was certainly surrounded by other large organic molecules. In that situation, life could spontaneously form, or at least the chemical precursors of cells, which is the most difficult part anyway.

If matter cannot be destroyed or originated in a reaction, then whatever matter exists does not originate from a reaction. Therefore, it was not made from something. Therefore, it was made from nothing. Therefore, it was created. Tadaaa... Note that it's not my own idea, it's directly inferred from a genuine anti-creationist argument raised in this discussion. You are not talking about the creation of life, but the creation of the universe. My own understanding of a Creator God will only allow me to accept creationism up to this point, as all else in the universe is logical. A universe created from nothing? That does indeed sound like the work of something which no one could understand. However, it should be pointed out that all other beliefs Man had about the work of God have been debunked one after another. This may be the last to go or the last frontier of faith based logic. Either way, I imagine the time of understanding is a long way off.

Hmm, just a little fuel to some of ya'lls fire:

If there really is a god, who or what created him? Where did he come from? Why isn't there just nothing, ever?

And for anyone who would use the previous statements to argue chevalier:

Where did this matter, that created everything come from? And if you say the elements, where did the elements come from? Once again, why isn't there just nothing?

That is a long time to "dabble" and clearly nature was capable of spontaneously creating life because it happened as you or I can attest.No, I cannot attest that. I can only state for sure that life exists. That it originated spontaneously from some sequence of chemical reactions is something yet to prove.

Also, what is nature? Getting metaphysical, aren't we? ;)

Also, I don't really see how oxidation excludes the possibility of existence of God creator.

Also, you do not understand the significance of RNAI understand more than you think. Just please quit coming up with scraps of basic genetics and explain how RNA contradicts the possibility of existence of God creator.

Your efforts are in vain, but I won't give out spoilers any soon. Let's see you guys sweat and then tell you why ;)

If there really is a god, who or what created him? Where did he come from? Why isn't there just nothing, ever?Logically, there are two possibilities here and there's no third one. Either something was created from nothing in the beginning or something (someone) exists without a beginning.

I have to say there are a few inconsistancies that I must point out:

The atmosphere is entirely made of the four elements you mentioned.That's not correct. The atmosphere contains a very large number of different elements. Argon and other noble gasses may be small in amout, but are essential none the less.

nature was capable of spontaneously creating life because it happened as you or I can attest. But how did life generate spontaneously? That's the thing. People have hypotheses, not even theories, like electricity, but nobody has proved anything yet.

DNA's purpose is somewhat redundant Nonesense. DNA is vital. RNA does not have anywhere near the stability that DNA does. If DNA had not come along life wouldn't have got very far. If there is a heat change, RNA can unravel.

It is also significant that the ribosomes which produce protein are themselves made almost entirely out of RNA Tis is simply a matter of efficiency. Ribosomal RNA soes not have the lifespan of DNA. As such it is easier and simpler for the cell to use rRNA istead. This RNA, however does not have any part in the translation of mRNA. It's sole function is structural, wheras tRNA actually is used. Also the tRNA is only there as a middle man so to speak.

Finally you talk about lots of facts about God being debunked. Like what? the garden of eden. If you take the bible litterally, you are going to find lots of inconsistancies. Anybody can. The thing IS pretty old, written in a time before ours. If you look at it like a guide book, however, providing insight and advice on how to face challenges, etc, there is still plenty there for people to find.
Name me one scientific theory you can take litterally. And I mean litterally, not viewpoint adaptations. Survival of the fitest? that's an adaption of Darwin's theory on evolution. An ADAPTION. Darwin had no idea how far his theory would go. Theory of relativity? Einstein has a damned good theory, but even he would have admitted that the theory was not solid. That it is likely to change slightly as time goes on. If you take it litterally it'll bite you on the ass at some point.
I think people should look at the things in a bit more of a broader spectrum, and not based on litteral translations of texts they have little understanding of.

[ April 23, 2004, 01:39: Message edited by: takara ]

It is sort of natural that if you dabble with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, you get all sorts of carbohydrates, aldehydes, alcoholes, amino acids and so on. Now show me how that's life. It's no news that human body is made of atoms just like everything else - heck, it has to be!:mad:

This is what makes arguing with creationists/anti-evolutionists/republicans/etc so damn annoying and disagreeable! Instead of admitting you were wrong (which I proved you were), you decided to change the subject!

Also, I find it rather hilarious that one second you say:

Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously and then the next post:

It is sort of natural that if you dabble with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, you get all sorts of carbohydrates, aldehydes, alcoholes, amino acids and so on. So, within 24 hours your entire worldview has changed. Amazing! I don't mean for this to be a personal attack, but I feel an obligation to point out your flip-flopping. :thumb: Once you admit you were proven wrong by Stanley Miller's 51 year old experiment I think we can continue the discussion. :cool:

Looks like this thread is stirring up the bad kind of passion.

RuneQuester...I have to take objection to your tone and demeanor that you are using to "debate" this topic. I've found some of your more recent characterizations to be just a bit too far on the insulting side. You have never addressed any of my claims against evolution and atheism, but have used the "Pile it High and Deep" approach while cutting and pasting my coments to use in improper context. I don't think you have an open enough mind and enough freedom from defensiveness to cogently discuss this topic.

Oh, and of course the site you reference is partisan...who do you think the pop-ups support? Try a library instead.


The title of the thread is "Debunking Creationism"

I've always identified a bunk as a sort of bed.

We are therefore, in this thread, trying to get Creationism out of bed.


This is how your logic seems to me, and probably to many others too. It makes grandiose sweeping arcs, all to loop back around to serve it's own proof...and anyone who hasn't bought in to the deception can see that...when you've bought into the deception you are blind to it.

chev's already shown you the error of your logic.

Grey has spoken from a human observation point in the God / evolution thread.

Give it up. You can't win. I can't win. Then again, I don't have to win, whereas you do...because if you acknowledge flaws or holes in your belief system, you might just find yourself having to confront the existence of a higher power than yourself. That possibility scares the HELL out of atheists.

I have to say there are a few inconsistancies that I must point out:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The atmosphere is entirely made of the four elements you mentioned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not correct. The atmosphere contains a very large number of different elements. Argon and other noble gasses may be small in amout, but are essential none the less.
Well...of course. Excuse my brevity.


Tis is simply a matter of efficiency. Ribosomal RNA soes not have the lifespan of DNA. As such it is easier and simpler for the cell to use rRNA istead. This RNA, however does not have any part in the translation of mRNA. It's sole function is structural, wheras tRNA actually is used. Also the tRNA is only there as a middle man so to speak.
That is bad science...

DNA does not have much of a lifespan either as the cell must constantly repair it. RNA and DNA are virtually identical and as such, they respond to heat in much the same way. If RNA was really so fragile, how is it that viruses travel through the air? Certainly there are large temperature variations between the air and the inside of my cells.

rRNA, tRNA, and mRNA are all...ready?...RNA! Those little letters in front?...They describe function which is a consequence of various sequences of A,C,G and U.

My point is this. RNA has both the capacity for heredity and protein construction. It is also made up of rather small monomers which are not hard to fathom forming spontaneously.

I must concede that I am not billions of years old so I cannot legally vouch for the witnessing of the event. However, my theory certainly sounds plausible.

Creationism cannot be proved for the same reason spontaneous RNA formation cannot be proved. However, one theory is based in logic and the other has no basis what-so-ever. I'll stick with logic.

I don't understand. I claim that all of so called scientific evidence you and your supporters provide is no evidence at all since basically none of that contradicts the possibility of there being God and you agree with me?YES!! I have said this ALL ALONG!! My major contention with Hacken' was that he was trying to equate evolution with atheism(and conversely theism with creationism). This thread was about debunking CREATIONISM, NOT GOD! Creationism is simply bad science(when it even dons the lab coat disguise at all!) as well as bad theology! I do not use science to debunk theology (bad or otherwise).

Come on CHev'...I KNOW you are sharper than that!

3.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if this WERE true(the part about matter not being created or destroyed in a reaction) what you are offering here is a "God of the gaps" argument. "We don't know how *This* is done so God must have done it!" .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was not making any statements, claims or conclusions of my own. I merely concentrated on the logic used in an argument supplied by the opposition.YOU stated that teh law of energy conservation was stronger evidence for creationism adn you went to some effort to explain why you felt this way.
I read what you wrote, tossed it around in my head adn ultimately found it was not muchy more than "Look! Here is something science cannot explain..."

God of the gaps.

If matter cannot be destroyed or originated in a reaction, then whatever matter exists does not originate from a reaction. Therefore, it was not made from something. Therefore, it was made from nothing. Therefore, it was created. Tadaaa... Note that it's not my own idea, it's directly inferred from a genuine anti-creationist argument raised in this discussion.Uh oh. I can smell the uncaused cause/infinite regression roundabout coming!

1)SOMETHING could have existed eternally. Not only is there nothiong prohibiting infinite regress in science but the laws of physics seem to demand such a thing!

2) The universe COULD be a cyclical phenomenom that causes it's own existence during it's own death throws.

3)The universe MAY be the result of an infinite regression of "creators/designers"(though this sounds doubtful).

4)etc.


I am content with "I don't know for sure yet!".

4.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true. Creationism has been debunked time and again to the same extent that ANYTHING has been "debunked". Creationists denying this are no more than modern equivalents to the flat-earthers and geocentrists of a few hundred years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's one nice piece of propaganda, but it's nothing scientific. None of your supposed evidence is able to contradict creationism and prove itself true at one time. It must both prove itself true and contradict creationism in order to disprove creationism.Wrong. Scientifically, if one theory actually qualifies as a theory, is tetsted and subjected to peer review, makes predictions that pan out, is revised adn corrected as new data is presented, has grounds for falsification and yet remains unfalsified etc. then that theory has a lot going for it.
Now if the competing idea is NOT supported by any evidence, has no grounds for falsification, is not subject to peer review, meets NONE of the criteria of science(does not even qualify as a hypothesis!), is contradictory to observation and established scientific knowledge, has no evidentiary support for these contradictory claims(i.e. claims that all radiometric dating methods are false without even demonstrating an understanding of said methods let alone a valid critique or explanation!) etc. then THAT idea can be considered debunked when these errors are exposed.
It is no different than how stage magicians debunk psychics.


In short: faith is not enough I'm not going to exchange one faith for another.If evolution required ANY "faith" then I would be right there with you on this point. However it does not and before your charge can be taken seriously you will have to give us more than a simple bald assertion.


All so called evidence ultimately amounts to "oh come on, God can't exist!".Have you seen ALL the evidence? I would wager bottom dollar you have not even seen a respectable amount of it. I would go so far as to say you are pretty well unaquainted with the theory of evolution if you can say what you just said with a straight face.


I'm not going to exhange one belief for another. Give me facts.So you can deny the facts and perform some bizarre twist of logic to explain how, for example ALL of the different methods of radiometric dating(potassium-argon, uranium lead etc.) give dates for the earth, moon and fossils which agree with one another? Or how the vestigial organs are "not really vestigial"?

Since you are familiar with ALL of the evidence and you think it ALL amounts to "Aw come one...God can't exist!" then why donm't you give us an example right here. SOmething that is considered evidence for evolution which does not meet the criteria for such a designation.


I mean, real facts. Not relying for major part on my good will to accept them, but real facts.Something tells me I will regret this but define "real facts" for me please.

5.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I have to be presented with an ARGUMENT first Chev'. As I stated in the op of this thread, my initial thought was to offer a lenghty "counterarguemtn" to arguments whihc no one had yet presented(having already refuted a ton of stuff by Hacken' and others) but that seemed wrong and presumptuous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allow me please to show you the error of your ways:

You don't have to be presented with any arguments. If you claim you can debunk creationism - mind you, not even disprove it, but totally make the very idea look ridiculous - it's your job to prove your claim. And I shall be the judge of your efforts WHich creationism do you want me to debunk? Hindu creationism? YEC christian creationism? ID creationism?

See my point now oh smug one?

I DID get a chuckle out of the "allow me, the rabid creationist to be the impartial judge of your efforts" bit.

I think next I will ask the Raeliens to comment on the evidence AGAINST the claims of ufology adn alien abductions!

6.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes...we ALL must proceed from certain axioms. Every single one of us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This basically means that each of us has his own faith.Wrong. My axiom conforms with observation adn experiment. It seems as likely as things get that matter exists and it does so independently of our wishes or perceptions. If I am blindfolded, driven to an unknown location, set free(with blindfold intact) to wander and I run into a tree, this indicates that the tree exists in and of itself(and that is only an off the cuff example).
THings typically taken on "faith" are so believed IN SPITE of or because they do NOT conform to observation or logic. God, magic, spirits etc.

Materialist axioms can be demonstrated under proper controls. Faith axioms cannot.


You believe in something, I believe in something.Wrong again! I "believe" in nothing. I accept what my senses and brain tell me because these are the only instruments I have for discerning truth about my surroundings. If I had a "faith sense" that was giving me reliable information that contradicted what my eyes and ears and rationality told me then that would be one thing...


Technically, your belief is no more rational than mine and vice versa. You believe in theories for which you have poor proof and I believe in revelations for which I have poor proof. Welcome to the world of faith.More groundloess assertions. Not logical and not good form.

7.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure there is. If my car disappears while I am in a coffee shop in Seattle, one of the follwoing will likely be "closer to fact" than the other(S):

1) A magical fairy turned my car into a parking meter.

2)Someone stole my car.

3) My car was towed.

None of the above could be "disproven" but one or more will be more likely true and conform to reality as we observe it. One or more of the above will be "closer to fact".

No, no, no...true that a "fact" will be a fact regardless of whether we know it or not(or what we may believe) but explanations offereed in lieu of knowing will be "close" or "not so close" to fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shhh... Not so fast. Something is either fact or non-fact. One or zero.Yes, we already agree to that. What I am refering to are EXPLANATIONS(a car fairy) posited for observed events/phenomenae/facts(A car is missing). Some will be "closer to fact".


Clear?


I won't repeat myself over and over again, but probability is one and actual state of reality is another. Something that is not fact, is either untrue or a subjective impression, opinion or any other kind of evaluation. If your cat has got towed, it looks like this:

My car has been towed. 1
My car has been stolen. 0
My car has been abducted and impregnated by a giant space hamster fairy. 0

The first one is true and the other two are false. That simply has not happened.Yes. What is your point?


@ Hackenslash:

Looks like this thread is stirring up the bad kind of passion.Not on the science side :) .

RuneQuester...I have to take objection to your tone and demeanor that you are using to "debate" this topic. I've found some of your more recent characterizations to be just a bit too far on the insulting side.Consider the feeling mututal then.


You have never addressed any of my claims against evolution and atheism, but have used the "Pile it High and Deep" approach while cutting and pasting my coments to use in improper context.That sirt goes beyond simply being an honest misunderstanding...you are flat out LIEING!
ANyone can go back to the God:Man or woman thread and see that I demolished your anti-evolution rant/misconceptions adn I never take ANYONE out of context. you will notice I quote you verbatim and in sequence(unlike SOME*cough*theists*cough here). You seem angry that I have taken the time to analyse and debunk your claims.

Too bad.


I don't think you have an open enough mind and enough freedom from defensiveness to cogently discuss this topic.Pot, meet kettle. Kettle...pot.

Oh, and of course the site you reference is partisan...who do you think the pop-ups support? Try a library instead.You should talk. Have YOU been to a library and researched the subject? If you had then you wouldn't be posting some of this ridiculous stuff that EVEN the CREATIONISTS WARN IS BUNK! I have dozens of books here as reference and I don't even need to crack them to deal with most of your stuff(the comet thing caught me off-guard as it has been awhile since I heard someone drag cosmology into an evolution debate).


The title of the thread is "Debunking Creationism"Correct. you will notice it is NOT "Debunking God" or "Refuting Christianity" or any such nonsense.

I've always identified a bunk as a sort of bed.


We are therefore, in this thread, trying to get Creationism out of bed.


This is how your logic seems to me, and probably to many others too.Except I am the one who has been arguing AGAINST such singular definitions all along while OTHERS continue to insist that words have singular meanings which do not shift according to speaker and audience and subject/context.


It makes grandiose sweeping arcs, all to loop back around to serve it's own proof...and anyone who hasn't bought in to the deception can see that...when you've bought into the deception you are blind to it.DO you have a point or refernce here...? Just curious. You are welcome to start a thread called "Groundless assertions about RQ which will not be substantiated" you know.

chev's already shown you the error of your logic.LOL!! Chev' is no match for me. You WILL Kneel before me son of YAHWEH!!

Grey has spoken from a human observation point in the God / evolution thread.And spouted even more ridiculous stuff than YOU have about evolution and was SOUNDLY and thoroughly trounced for it I noticed.


And you guys think I am hard on you...?

Give it up. You can't win.Yeah I bet they said the same thing to Galileo and Einstein. It all depends on politics unfortunately. If, for whatever reason, get back to supporting public education rather than subverting it, then creationsits will be virtually nonexistent in a matter of a few generations(at least the rabid, young earth whackos) just as flat earthers are now. If not then AMerica will be buying /importing all the latest technology adn medicines from other countries, just as Asimov predicted.


I can't win. Then again, I don't have to win, whereas you do...because if you acknowledge flaws or holes in your belief system, you might just find yourself having to confront the existence of a higher power than yourself. That possibility scares the HELL out of atheists.*Yawn*


Yeah I am shaking thinking of what your all powerful God of LOVE will do to me. He cannot be assed to show himself, I doubt he will be too adamant about reigning fire on us heathens or otherwise lording his power over us to "scare us".

Ironically that last statement of your applies much better to the theist(except teh "higher power" part needs to be changed to "Must aknowledge that no higher power is going to make everything alright when they are done screwing up and they mu8st take some responsibility for once adn THAT scares teh HELL out of some theists!")

[ April 23, 2004, 06:33: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

Not much to say in response to you, RuneMolester (that's to smack back for your "Death Rattle" to Death Rabbit, he is after all the mother/father of my child), but you are wrong and ill-informed...particularly in one of your final assertions It all depends on politics unfortunately. If, for whatever reason, get back to supporting public education rather than subverting it, then creationsits will be virtually nonexistent in a matter of a few generations That is exactly NOT what is happening in America. Don't really want to say more and over-inform someone whom I must view as an enemy.

I said it all in my prior post, and once again you have chosen to cut and paste, rather than post a lucid arguement for your religion. You should really stop spending so much time time trying to discredit the claims of others, and try to focus on stating what you believe.

I don't really have the time to spend on this anymore...Life is too short to debate with people who shout louder to see how loud they can get.

@late night thinker.
I cut short the science because I wasn't sure what level you have studied. I'm not about to go into a blow by blow reason why DNA is much more stable than RNA. Also I can tell you exactly why virus particles can travel in the air. DNA is repaired, but is designed to last years. RNA has a lifespan of weeks-hours. That is a HELL of a difference to me.

I must be the worst atheist/agnostic in the world, because I can never decide which one I am. Today, I think I’ll wear my atheist hat.

@ Hacken Slash:
if you acknowledge flaws or holes in your belief system, you might just find yourself having to confront the existence of a higher power than yourself. That possibility scares the HELL out of atheists. Not really. I have no fear of a higher power, but as I said in another thread, I require something that meets my standard of proof (ie tangible) in order to believe.

@RuneQuester: when you say:
This thread was about debunking CREATIONISM, NOT GOD! …you are correct, of course (it’s your thread, after all). But the problem is that many people, yourself included, seem to be arguing both. It can be difficult at times to debate one without spilling over into the other.

[ April 23, 2004, 23:25: Message edited by: Splunge ]

God threads are always so easy in flames. I think that science and theology are two different disciplines. One does not interfere with the other, i.e. evolution says nothing about god and god says nothing about evolution or creationism. The bible doesn't demand do believe in creationism. Indeed, it's only a fringe groups and some weirdo sects that believe in that. I myself have never met anyone believing that in real life.

Creationism can't be debunked, as it doesn't really exist. It's just a bunch of arguments that change like a chameleon, according to the circumstances. The real question is, what benefit do people hope to get from creationism ? What's in it for them ? What can be gained from an abritrary reading of scripture ? Not to say, that there is anything that ain't aribtrary, but some things are more arbitrary then others.

This is what makes arguing with creationists/anti-evolutionists/republicans/etc so damn annoying and disagreeable! Instead of admitting you were wrong (which I proved you were), you decided to change the subject!That is exactly what makes arguing with evolutionists/anti-creationists/liberals etc so damn annoying.

BTW, side-note: if arguing is disagreeable, it means that the act of arguing is disagreeable. I'm sure that's not what you mean - after all, no liberal in his sane mind will ever agree that his arguments are disagreeable ;)

Next: you have not proven me, or anyone else, wrong in this thread.

Next: no one is going to take your word on that you have proven him wrong :rolleyes:

Next: nice attempt on changing the subject on your part ;)

Also, I find it rather hilarious that one second you say:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and then the next post:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is sort of natural that if you dabble with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, you get all sorts of carbohydrates, aldehydes, alcoholes, amino acids and so on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You miss the difference between "SPONTANEOUSLY" and "IF YOU DABBLE WITH".

So, within 24 hours your entire worldview has changed. Amazing! I don't mean for this to be a personal attack, but I feel an obligation to point out your flip-flopping. Once you admit you were proven wrong by Stanley Miller's 51 year old experiment I think we can continue the discussion.Please, don't take this as a personal attack, but I am coerced to point out your bending of logic to suit the wants of your arguments. And between ourselves, those arguments are quite wanting.

We can resume our discussion so soon as you have rethought your strategy.

YES!! I have said this ALL ALONG!! My major contention with Hacken' was that he was trying to equate evolution with atheism(and conversely theism with creationism). This thread was about debunking CREATIONISM, NOT GOD! Creationism is simply bad science(when it even dons the lab coat disguise at all!) as well as bad theology! I do not use science to debunk theology (bad or otherwise).How is creationism bad theology? Taking Genesis literally might indeed be so, but I don't see how it extends to creationism as a whole.

Come on CHev'...I KNOW you are sharper than that!*chevalier is immune*

YOU stated that teh law of energy conservation was stronger evidence for creationism adn you went to some effort to explain why you felt this way.
I read what you wrote, tossed it around in my head adn ultimately found it was not muchy more than "Look! Here is something science cannot explain..."

God of the gaps.In truth do I tell you, I went on the holes in the opposition's argumentation, focusing on the formal side only.

2) The universe COULD be a cyclical phenomenom that causes it's own existence during it's own death throws.If there are cycles, when did the sequence begin? At some point, there must have been a beginning.

My position is: one eternally existing God Creator who inflicted the beginning of everything at the beginning of time.

1)SOMETHING could have existed eternally. Not only is there nothiong prohibiting infinite regress in science but the laws of physics seem to demand such a thing!Indeed...

Wrong. Scientifically, if one theory actually qualifies as a theory, is tetsted and subjected to peer review, makes predictions that pan out, is revised adn corrected as new data is presented, has grounds for falsification and yet remains unfalsified etc. then that theory has a lot going for it.
Now if the competing idea is NOT supported by any evidence, has no grounds for falsification, is not subject to peer review, meets NONE of the criteria of science(does not even qualify as a hypothesis!), is contradictory to observation and established scientific knowledge, has no evidentiary support for these contradictory claims(i.e. claims that all radiometric dating methods are false without even demonstrating an understanding of said methods let alone a valid critique or explanation!) etc. then THAT idea can be considered debunked when these errors are exposed.
It is no different than how stage magicians debunk psychics.In truth do I tell you, lack of peer review is not an error. Neither is lack of evidence. Those have no bearing on the actual truthfulness or lack thereof. Just a formal issue, though.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short: faith is not enough I'm not going to exchange one faith for another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If evolution required ANY "faith" then I would be right there with you on this point. However it does not and before your charge can be taken seriously you will have to give us more than a simple bald assertion.I am beginning to have a feeling that simple bald assertion is everything that contradicts your claims.

Have you seen ALL the evidence? I would wager bottom dollar you have not even seen a respectable amount of it. I would go so far as to say you are pretty well unaquainted with the theory of evolution if you can say what you just said with a straight face.Gambling is going to be the doom of you.

Something tells me I will regret this but define "real facts" for me please.No, why would you? Real facts, as I wrote above, don't require any sort of believing, or taking someone else's word on things, if you prefer.

Speculations of scientists, speculations of priests... Whose speculations are "better"?

Wrong. My axiom conforms with observation adn experiment. It seems as likely as things get that matter exists and it does so independently of our wishes or perceptions. If I am blindfolded, driven to an unknown location, set free(with blindfold intact) to wander and I run into a tree, this indicates that the tree exists in and of itself(and that is only an off the cuff example).
THings typically taken on "faith" are so believed IN SPITE of or because they do NOT conform to observation or logic. God, magic, spirits etc.

Materialist axioms can be demonstrated under proper controls. Faith axioms cannot.The key to your axioms is proper controls. You can prove just about anything you like if given "proper controls". In short, you're asking for a credit of confidence here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe in something, I believe in something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong again! I "believe" in nothing. I accept what my senses and brain tell me because these are the only instruments I have for discerning truth about my surroundings. If I had a "faith sense" that was giving me reliable information that contradicted what my eyes and ears and rationality told me then that would be one thing...You accept things as granted. You take word on things. That's faith.

Yes, we already agree to that. What I am refering to are EXPLANATIONS(a car fairy) posited for observed events/phenomenae/facts(A car is missing). Some will be "closer to fact".Zero or one, I repeat. What you are speaking of is probability.

Yes. What is your point?Explaining the above.

@Splunge
I have no fear of a higher power, but as I said in another thread, I require something that meets my standard of proof (ie tangible) in order to believe.
That sounds a little more agnostic to me ;) . Glad to discuss the issue in rational tones, though. I didn't mean to paint all atheists/agnostics with a broad brush, so I apologize for my general statement...I mean't to apply the evident fear observation to those who claim to be atheist, yet vehemently attack the tenets of world religions. It's, how do you say, ah yes, "The Smell of Fear".

And yes, Iago, "Creationism" is a tenet of Christianity. Now, to say that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story is required (and I think that's what you meant), then I would agree with you...most Christian denominations don't teach a literal "6 days of creation", so if that is what you are calling "creationism", then we agree. There is no burden on us to be believers and accept a literal interpretation of an acient Hebrew world-view mythos.

What is required is to accept that, regardless of the mechanisms and order that was used, the world (taken in the broadest sense) was created by a word from God, and everything was good. That's all. That's creationism.

I agree with you that there is danger in not reckoning what type of literature one is reading in the Bible. It is not a science text nor a history book...although it teaches some scientific and historical truth.

Chev, now you're just embarrassing yourself.

You said, and I quote:

Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously.
In other words, you purported as fact that we don't know from what conditions are conducive to the formation of organic molecules from non-organic ones.

Stanley Miller showed that in a closed system, with certain concentrations of elements and compounds and with an electric current organic molecules arise from non organic molecules.

I will try to make this very simple:

Human science has The experiments of Stanley Miller and others show...

no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of we have amply experience as to what is conducive to the forming of...

organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously. organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously.

Let's bring it together:

Human science has shown that certain concentrations of compounds combined with electrical currrent (akin to the postulated conditions on Earth over 4 billion years ago) is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously.

And, yes, the organic molecules were created spontaneously within the confines of Miller's experiment. They were self-generated within the parameters of the experiment. He "dabbled" with the parameters of the experimental environment. That does not change the fact that within the confines of the system organic molecules were synthesized spontaneously.

As such, this statement makes no sense:

You miss the difference between "SPONTANEOUSLY" and "IF YOU DABBLE WITH".The take-home is this: we DO know what is conducive the formation of organic molecules (i.e. particular concentrations of compounds and electrical current), CONTRARY to what you stated as fact.

@Ankiseth
The results of Miller's experiments in the 50's were greatly overestimated. It's been a while since I've read on them, but most of the modern scientific community no longer regard them as valid work to build upon, other than from the standpoint of "what not to do".

In the 40 some-odd years since that work, we have failed to repeat in any reliable fashion the findings he claimed to have made. I don't remember the specifics off the top of my head, but there was some sort of flaw in his design that allowed the portions of "organic molecules" to form.

There is a reason that the work is quoted from 1951 instead of 2001. There has been some limited success in recent years synthesizing materials that could be organic building blocks, but certainly not to the extent or simplicity that Miller reported.

My point is, Ankiseth, if you are going to square off with chev, you should base yourself on some more solid ground, and not research that is essentially viewed as "legacy" by the scientific community of today.

I'd be happy to consider your thoughts. Although you have a terrible habit of not posting sources. Statements like this worry me: "I don't remember the specifics off the top of my head".

There is a reason why I am source thin...I'm at work most of the time when I post, and have no choice but to wing it.

As much as I hate to admit it...maybe RuneQuester, Bion or Hermit09 can speak up on Miller's work...they seem to be far more connected to source material than I.

I find it curious that you want to "challenge" the Miller-Urey experiment, in which a wide varity of organic compounds were synthesized by applying energy (electrical or ultraviolet discharge) to a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. The experiment has been repeated and the results verified thousands of times in labs all over the world. http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/astrobio/astrobio_detail.cfm?ID=767

I hope the NASA astrobiology institute isn't partisan. ;)

Maybe next week when I'm at school I'll do more research on it with some scholarly journals.

Oh well, if my memory is wrong, then I stand corrected, but a red flag goes up to me by the comments following the section you pasted. It was one of the important steps toward our modern understanding of the chemistry of the early Earth, even though we now think the Earth's orginal atmosphere had a somewhat diffferent composition. Notice also that he was careful to say that it has been repeated and the results verified...carefully sidestepping what indeed those results are or whether they match what Miller claimed them to be.
And it still looks like the guy never answered the question which was What information can be used to challenge Miller and Urey's experiment? The guy basically just said "you are wrong to question it" instead of pointing out some of the flaws in the experiment and Miller's assumptions, maybe even taking a "devil's advocate" approach.

I would not label this site as "partisan", but judging from the inherrent arrogance of the answer, I wouldn't call it objective or instructive either.

I think that my point has actually been proven, more by what wasn't said than what was said.

Notice also that he was careful to say that it has been repeated and the results verified...carefully sidestepping what indeed those results are or whether they match what Miller claimed them to be.
Ummm. I assume by the context of the passage that verification and matching are equivlent.

This website is clearly designed for the average rube, it's no surprise he doesn't go into more detail.

And it still looks like the guy never answered the question which was.. Yes he did. "None" is an answer. It has been repeated so many times that it is "hopeless" to argue against.

I think that my point has actually been proven, more by what wasn't said than what was said. I'm rather perplexed at how you arrived at this conclusion. I'm even more perplexed as to what exactly your point is.

Here is another website that makes the same claim: http://www.biocab.org/Panspermia.html

This experiment has been repeated by many investigators and the results each time are more surprising. It has been shown that almost any source of energy (electricity, volcanic heated dust, light, ultraviolet radiation) would have been able to convert the primitive molecules into an enormous variety of complex organic compounds.
Anyway, my point has been proven. I wanted to show that "human science" does know what is conducive to the formation or organic molecules from inorganic ones. And I have.

[ April 23, 2004, 21:07: Message edited by: Ankiseth_Vanir ]

Look, I don't mean to be rude, brash and arrogant, but hey I am so...

I'm not going to waste time debating the science with the creationists, because those talking are the ones who don't want to try and understand it. I won't mention quantum theory, which shows Chevalier's argument that something either is or isn't to be completely false. We won't mention gravity and it's many proofs, like the finding of Neptune. I won't talk about dark energy.

I won't talk about hypothesis or theory or how the second law of thermodynamics actually works (and if you think you can apply it to increasing complexity in biological lifeforms - let me know what you're on, please).

I won't mention religion, controversy, the Church's fanatical support of a flat world, the clearly incorrect passages in the Bible describing the Universe,or the masturbatory arguments made by so many on both sides of this argument (Hey look God Boy, my science encyclopedia is much bigger than yours).

Anyway, I thought I'd sum things up for you all, you're getting pretty worked up and I realise that, maybe, a little perspective is needed, so let me pur a little cool, long glass of ice water for you.

Drum roll...

The best argument against creationism is the people that believe in it.

Drum Roll...

And the second best is the arguments the creationists make to support their views.

Thank you, you've been great.

[You can be rude, brash and arrogant, but if you wish to continue to post on these boards, you will check that baggage at the door - BTA]

[ April 23, 2004, 22:54: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Someone else please try to explain to Ankiseth the points I raised against the link he gave to support the Miller experiment! :rolleyes:

I'm not trying to be condescending, but please...reread carefully the things I said and think about what they mean...view the answer objectively, not like it has anything to do with anything you care about...break it down grammatically and liguistically and try to see objectively what's being said by what is not being said.

George W. Bush answers questions with far more candor than this astrobiologist, and Bush get's skewered for it...check out the Press Conference thread in this forum.

It's all in what you want to hear when you begin to read and you need to try to raise yourself above the prejudice. Would some "neutral" party please sound off and let me know if I've gone nuts!

[edit]thanks for the highbrow additions to the thread, Goat. Come back when you gather more pertinent data to contribute :rolleyes:

I reread your post again, and it makes just as little if not less sense than before. Particularly this passage:

Notice also that he was careful to say that it has been repeated and the results verified...carefully sidestepping what indeed those results are or whether they match what Miller claimed them to be. What on Earth could verification mean besides corrobarative (matching) evidence? Seriously?

Would some "neutral" party please sound off and let me know if I've gone nuts Well, I don't know if I'm neutral, but personally I think everyone has gone a little nuts. :p

IMO, the best we can hope for in a debate like this is something resembling a vague understanding of where the other side is coming from. I don't think one side will ever convince the other.

On a completely different note, I wonder if it's possible for someone to get the IotW plaque after only one post?

I agree with you Spunge...maybe it's just time to agree to disagree and close this thread with the mutual understanding that we always need to guard either sides right to hold whatever belief they want.

On your other note...IotW with one post has happened before I think...Maybe I'll start a thread at SS to find out.

Thanks for the affirmation on my insanity ;) .

@Hacken Slash


Not much to say in response to you, RuneMolester (that's to smack back for your "Death Rattle" to Death Rabbit, he is after all the mother/father of my child),I made a mistake. I typed "Death Rattle" instead of "Death Rabbit". Pretty obvious that it was not an intended slight or I would have typed something like "Deaf Rabbi" or "Silly Rabbit" or some such. DO you really think it rose to the level of "RuneMolestor"? Not that any personal attacks phase me much but it is a curious respnse to such an innocent faux pax for a christian to call me a "molestor".


but you are wrong and ill-informed...particularly in one of your final assertions
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all depends on politics unfortunately. If, for whatever reason, get back to supporting public education rather than subverting it, then creationsits will be virtually nonexistent in a matter of a few generations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is exactly NOT what is happening in America. Don't really want to say more and over-inform someone whom I must view as an enemy.AGAIN, we have the bald assertion followed by the excuse for not substantiating the assertion. This seems to be a key ingredient in your postings.

I said it all in my prior post, and once again you have chosen to cut and paste, rather than post a lucid arguement for your religion.What "cut & paste" are you refering to? I QUOTED YOU because it is proper to make clear exactly what one is replying to adn the context the original statement was made.

Also, I do not have any religion. In addition to being atheist I am also "areligious". Surely you do not think much of YOUR OWN position if your strongest charge against us "closed minded atheists" is that we "have faith" or "are religious"!

You never hear scientists OR scientific atheists accusing the religious or faithful of being "just as scientific" or "just as rational" as we/they are.


You should really stop spending so much time time trying to discredit the claims of others, and try to focus on stating what you believe.*Sigh* I do not have any positive "beliefs"(at the very least none related to this discussion). Atheism is a LACK of a belief(in gods) and accepting the findings of science when they are well founded requires no "belief".

Also the thread is called "Debunking creationism", not "Here is my comprehensive worldview on all matters of import!". Therefore it is proper that I concentrate on showing that creationism is "bunk".

I don't really have the time to spend on this anymore...Life is too short to debate with people who shout louder to see how loud they can get. Another bald assertion(gets old hearing me say that? Gets even OLDER seeing this fallacy repeated over and over and over!)

In order for this charge to hold ANY water you must show how I am guilty of mererly "shouting" to see how loud I can shout. You are free to disagree with what i say but to pretend that I have been just screaming irrelevent nonsense here with no fixed point or reference...that is just lazy.


@Splunge:


@Keldor: when you say:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This thread was about debunking CREATIONISM, NOT GOD!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

…you are correct, of course (it’s your thread, after all). But the problem is that many people, yourself included, seem to be arguing both. It can be difficult at times to debate one without spilling over into the other. First off, I am not "Keldor". You may call me "RQ", RUne", "Quest" or even "Molestor" if you are from Hacken's sect of christianity. :D

You are right that many are arguing for/against "God" in addition to the subjecxt at hand. But when you accuse ME of doing this I expect a cite or refernce to back this up. I think a few here are guilty of assuming things about me that are not demonstrated in my postings. Hacken' assumed I was trying to debunk God(what a fruitless adn silly venture that would be!?), Chev' assumed I was arguing that science could disprove God or some such(wrong again!) and seemed taken aback wehn I pointed out that we largely AGREED on the points he was presneting in refutation of(what he thought was) my positions.

Let me make this clear once and for all: I am no more interested in trying to "disprove God" than I am in trying to disprove fairies, Santa, vampires or any other alleged supernatural phenomenae.
When I set out to "debunk creationism", I do so on the grounds that, according to the methodology creationists claim is valid(science) creationism IS bunk!

*No grounds for falsification

*Makes no predictions which can be verified/falsified

*Cannot be tested

*Contradicts virtually ALL other areas of scientific discovery/study

By the standards of SCIENCE(and critical thought) creationism is BUNK!

[ April 23, 2004, 22:55: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

@RuneQuester

If you were offended or slighted by my rather childish twist on your name, please accept my apologies.

Everything else stands ;) .

By the standards of SCIENCE(and critical thought) creationism is BUNK! Then why you keep trying to "debunk" it? :confused:

@ RuneQuester
First off, I am not "Keldor". Oops! Sorry about that! :o

Before I made that post, I had been looking in an older AoDA thread in which an SP member by the name of Keldor was very active (he hasn't been around lately). Your style of posting is very similar to his in terms of layout, approach, tone and, well, everything. So when I posted here, I had a "senior moment" and thought I was responding to him rather than you. My apologies; I've edited my other post.

As to the other comments directed at me - hopefully you've gathered that I'm not really interested in debating this topic any more, so please forgive me if I take a pass on responding. :p :D

As to the other comments directed at me - hopefully you've gathered that I'm not really interested in debating this topic any more, so please forgive me if I take a pass on responding. Hehe. Splunge, you got almost caught in the middle of the raging forces of AoDA. :D

No problem Splunge. At least you didn't call me "Molestor"... :D

Good morning, gentlemen. Since I'm drunk, let's dispense with the pleasantries and move on to the schedule:

Ankiseth_Vanir, your pertinent zeal in mending the world has merited you a special honorary mention in this post. However, that zeal clouds your vision. You're quite knowledgeable and no one denies that, but it doesn't dispense you from the very basic requirement of actually making some sense. It is not enough to quote scientists or scientific theories to be rational. Despite knowledge is power and a great thing to have, everyone can quote. Not everyone can think rationally and push his thoughts through. I don't find pleasure in playing your menthor, so let's just make a deal like two adult, sensible people: either you start backing your claims and framing them in some rational fashion, or I'll start to skip them. We don't have to agree, but going so far as you tend to do requires some grounding. If I were in your shoes, I would follow Hacken Slash's advice and go get that grounding the sooner the better.

I won't mention quantum theory, which shows Chevalier's argument that something either is or isn't to be completely false.It is not my theory, it's a law of logic. The dichotomy between the true and the false is the very base of logic. Either true or false, not grey area in between. Whatever is grey, is not a logical claim but evaluation, impressions and whatever subjective views else can be.

Now, let's be mean for a while and choose your sentence for the prey:

"Chevalier's argument that something either is or isn't is completely false", ERGO: something can be and not be at the same time.

Please show me how a logical claim can be both true and false at one time. Or how an object can exist and not exist at the very same time.

We won't mention gravity and it's many proofs, like the finding of Neptune.And gravity and the finding of Neptune are proof to what exactly? Are you going to prove the non-existence of any Creator entity basing on the fact of existence of Neptune? Doctors might have something to say about that, if you're being serious.

I won't mention religion, controversy, the Church's fanatical support of a flat world, the clearly incorrect passages in the Bible describing the UniverseHow I love such sentences. I will spare you the questionning of your knowledge of ancient to rennaissance history, but I won't let you get away with one thing: what you mention is the state of science in the given time. Scientists were all clergymen or somehow else connected to the Church? Doesn't matter, they were still scientists. Personally, those guys look to me a bit like today's scientists who choose convenient safe ideas to follow and believe in and scold everyone who comes up with anything new. In short: scientists of that era were almost all convinced that Earth was flat. And some time in the past Pythagoras believed that beans had soul, you know :rolleyes:

Someone else please try to explain to Ankiseth the points I raised against the link he gave to support the Miller experiment!No point, it's doomed to fail. Whatever doesn't fit in his precious little universe will be promptly disregarded. No offence intended, some people just need more time.

I reread your post again, and it makes just as little if not less sense than before.I know it wasn't referred to me, but I couldn't just let go of it. If his post makes less sense to you each time you read it, it logically means you gradually lose your mental ability.

:yot:
I'm sorry, but I just have to point out something:
Good morning, gentlemen. Since I'm drunk, let's dispense with the pleasantries and move on to the schedule: :lol: ROTFL

Agree with him or not, but let this serve as undeniable proof that Chev is a bad-ass. I didn't even read the rest of his post. :D

/me salutes chev :thumb: (there's not a smiley for a salute, so this'll have to do)

You may now return to your respective soapboxes.

Chev is proof that There is a God.

No way that anything could evolve into Chev...

He's a created being through and through.


I somehow think it would be a good idea if all the participants in this thread could sit down and share some of what chev's having. ;)

This is quite possible the most bizarre post I've read at this website. But you did say you were drunk.

...but it doesn't dispense you from the very basic requirement of actually making some sense. It is not enough to quote scientists or scientific theories to be rational.My argument was/is very simple. All I sought to do is to prove that your statement "Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously." is incorrect. I proved you were incorrect by showing that energy + certain concentrations of compounds is conducive to the formation of organic molecules spontaneously.

Despite knowledge is power and a great thing to have, everyone can quote.:confused:

Not everyone can think rationally and push his thoughts through. I don't find pleasure in playing your menthor, so let's just make a deal like two adult, sensible people: either you start backing your claims and framing them in some rational fashion, or I'll start to skip them.See, this is why I'm still on your back - because you ALREADY have skipped over my claims. My posts are rational, logical, and incredibly easy to understand and you somehow managed to misinterpret the meaning of my posts.

I always write as if I'm writing for a rube. Feel free to point out how my claims are not framed in a rational manner. It would do wonders for your argument.

If I were in your shoes, I would follow Hacken Slash's advice and go get that grounding the sooner the better.Isn't it funny how HackenSlash overanalyzed every word in the source I provided to the point of blatant misinterpretation, yet you can make blanket statements such as "Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously." with *no* source provided. And HackenSlash's response? Not a peep! I *did* provide a credible source. YOU are the one who needs to find solid grounding.

@Ankiseth

I did state my objections, to not only the Miller experiments but to the defense of them at the NAI site.

You just either don't agree or don't understand.

I think it may be the later. The source may indeed be credible (at least as opposed to partisan), but the answer given was unsatisfactory to me as a person who doesn't already accept the answer. ;) . There was no answer given except for "don't ask"...that has as much critical viability as me expecting you to have faith in God because God says to.

There is a huge difference between "not a peep" and the responses I made. And this started as such a civil conversation. :rolleyes:

Ankiseth, no one is taking it personal against you, but in all honesty it's you who bring it on your own head. Here's more:

My argument was/is very simple. All I sought to do is to prove that your statement "Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously." is incorrect. I proved you were incorrect by showing that energy + certain concentrations of compounds is conducive to the formation of organic molecules spontaneously.Simple doesn't necessarily mean free of formal error. For about third or fourth time I tell you you have proven nothing so far with regard to my posts.

Next, what part of "Despite knowledge is power and a great thing to have, everyone can quote." can't you understand? It's a basic sentence consisting of just one main clause and one simple adverbial clause of concession without any baroque structures :rolleyes:

See, this is why I'm still on your back - because you ALREADY have skipped over my claims. My posts are rational, logical, and incredibly easy to understand and you somehow managed to misinterpret the meaning of my posts.Well, no. It hurts me as much as you, but I have to disagree. Your posts are not fully rational and not fully logical even if they are indeed easy to understand. A good way to having your posts NOT misinterpreted is to frame them clearly, precisely and unequivocally. And, most of all, to do a good debugging before hitting the final button.

Isn't it funny how HackenSlash overanalyzed every word in the source I provided to the point of blatant misinterpretation, yet you can make blanket statements such as "Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously." with *no* source provided. And HackenSlash's response? Not a peep! I *did* provide a credible source. YOU are the one who needs to find solid grounding.There is no such thing as overanalysing here. You make posts which are not exactly free of formal errors, so it's natural that formal analysis follows.

I'm quite sure you would do the same if Hacken Slash in his posts created an opportunity for critical analysis on formal grounds. A la guerre come a la guerre, they say. If you don't like to soak with blood you don't become a soldier.

Peace, brother :good:

Simple doesn't necessarily mean free of formal error. For about third or fourth time I tell you you have proven nothing so far with regard to my posts.Yes I have. If your going to reply back the validity of your quote instead of just saying "you have proven nothing." I systematically debunked your claim pertaining to the formation of organic molecules from non-organic ones. HOW have I proven nothing? You have NOT been addressing the issue.

Well, no. It hurts me as much as you, but I have to disagree. Your posts are not fully rational and not fully logical even if they are indeed easy to understand. A good way to having your posts NOT misinterpreted is to frame them clearly, precisely and unequivocally. And, most of all, to do a good debugging before hitting the final button.Once again, if you want to make a point PROVIDE EVIDENCE. *HOW* was I NOT clear? HOW was I NOT PRECISE?

Read this: don't bother replying until you explain how I was not precise and/or clear.

I already have and it's up there in posts that you were replying when the whole formal issue started. I'm not going to let you stray this all in a loop, sorry. Perhaps other participants have something to say?

Read this: don't bother replying until you explain how I was not precise and/or clear. Someone has problems following clear, precise, and simple directions.

@Chev'


I am going to answer a 'pre-drunken' post of yours I somehow missed earlier as teh 'post-drunken' ramblings you are offering make absolutely no sense.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES!! I have said this ALL ALONG!! My major contention with Hacken' was that he was trying to equate evolution with atheism(and conversely theism with creationism). This thread was about debunking CREATIONISM, NOT GOD! Creationism is simply bad science(when it even dons the lab coat disguise at all!) as well as bad theology! I do not use science to debunk theology (bad or otherwise).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is creationism bad theology? Taking Genesis literally might indeed be so, but I don't see how it extends to creationism as a whole.First off, notice how Chev' tries to dodge the fact that he made an error and rather than aknowledge his logical error he tries to latch onto a tagentially related issue? Chev' does this a lot! I think most don't seem to notice because he is good for chastising others about alleged "logical errors" even while he is commiting fallacies by the handful!

So Chev' are we clear on teh fact that I have not been trying to "disprove God" and Hacken Slash's initial challenge/response to me in this thread WAS in error?(go back and read her firt reply if you need a refresher)

Second, creationism is "bad theology" for the same reason as it is bad SCIENCE. Religion wearing a lab coat to try and justify it's tenets by scientific criteria only brings down said religion and attempts to make a mockery of science, just as if scientists were to promote theories and such according to religious criteria would be bad science.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on CHev'...I KNOW you are sharper than that!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*chevalier is immune**Shrug*


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU stated that the law of energy conservation was stronger evidence for creationism and you went to some effort to explain why you felt this way.
I read what you wrote, tossed it around in my head and ultimately found it was not much more than "Look! Here is something science cannot explain..."

God of the gaps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In truth do I tell you, I went on the holes in the opposition's argumentation, focusing on the formal side only.You made a God of the gaps argument. This is not changed by the statement you offer here(regardless of whether there is anything sensible to be found in the above assertion)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The universe COULD be a cyclical phenomenom that causes it's own existence during it's own death throws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there are cycles, when did the sequence begin? At some point, there must have been a beginning.Another bald assertion. Why did the universe HAVE to have a beginning? At the sub atomic level, "beginning" does not even apply or make sense(not much really makes sense at this level). You are PRESUMMING the necessity of a beginning. My speculation above(not something I believe btw) is about a CYCLICAL universe! That measn it has no proper beginning. it is like one of those staircases in an M.C. Escher picture where the steps manage to climb higher and higher(with no apparent descencion as counter-logical as it seems) and ultimately meet the "bottom" steps or something.

My position is: one eternally existing God Creator who inflicted the beginning of everything at the beginning of time.Either things CAN exist eternally, in which case the universe itself can have done so OR things must be created or caused by others, in which case your God requires a creator, and his creator requires a creator ad infinitum.
Logically, you cannot assert that all things must have causes as a premise and then give arbitrary exemption to "God".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)SOMETHING could have existed eternally. Not only is there nothiong prohibiting infinite regress in science but the laws of physics seem to demand such a thing!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Scientifically, if one theory actually qualifies as a theory, is tetsted and subjected to peer review, makes predictions that pan out, is revised adn corrected as new data is presented, has grounds for falsification and yet remains unfalsified etc. then that theory has a lot going for it.
Now if the competing idea is NOT supported by any evidence, has no grounds for falsification, is not subject to peer review, meets NONE of the criteria of science(does not even qualify as a hypothesis!), is contradictory to observation and established scientific knowledge, has no evidentiary support for these contradictory claims(i.e. claims that all radiometric dating methods are false without even demonstrating an understanding of said methods let alone a valid critique or explanation!) etc. then THAT idea can be considered debunked when these errors are exposed.
It is no different than how stage magicians debunk psychics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In truth do I tell you, lack of peer review is not an error.Be clear Chev'. No more cryptic inferences. What are you saying here?


Neither is lack of evidence. Those have no bearing on the actual truthfulness or lack thereof. Just a formal issue, though.*Sigh* Listen you keep misunderstanding this whole truth issue.

Statements/claims are either true(boolean 1) or fasloe(boolean 0). We do not disagree here. But humans are incapable of making such determinations to the satisfaction of their ideaological opponents/dissenters. SImply put we cannot LNOW anything with 100% certainty so the rationalist deals in LIKELIHOODS. We CAN make judgements as to the LIKELIHOOD of something being 'true' or 'false'.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short: faith is not enough I'm not going to exchange one faith for another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If evolution required ANY "faith" then I would be right there with you on this point. However it does not and before your charge can be taken seriously you will have to give us more than a simple bald assertion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am beginning to have a feeling that simple bald assertion is everything that contradicts your claims.No. A bald assertion is a logical fallacy which involves stating something as if it were objective fact WITHOUT providing any substantiation ofr the assertion. Above you maker the assertion that science is just another "faith" with the strong implication that this alleged "faith" of science is no more substantial than any other faith(i.e. YOUR religious faith). This is akin to someone stating "Well, sure if you use MATH to quantify the number of apples you may THINK farmer Brown has a dozen but I am not going to exchange your blind guessing for my own blind guessing!"


Again, I find it odd that religionists will espouse the virtue of "faith" so loudly out of one side of their mouths and then out of the other side condemn science as "Just another faith". You never hear scientists accusing religionists of being "Just more science" or being "Just as rational as we are".

You guys seem quite taken with teh methods of science and critical thought in an "appeal to authority" sort of way but you do not like what these things actually tell you when you practice them.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you seen ALL the evidence? I would wager bottom dollar you have not even seen a respectable amount of it. I would go so far as to say you are pretty well unaquainted with the theory of evolution if you can say what you just said with a straight face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gambling is going to be the doom of you.Pretty safe bets. I am not much of a gambler.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something tells me I will regret this but define "real facts" for me please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, why would you? Real facts, as I wrote above, don't require any sort of believing, or taking someone else's word on things, if you prefer.Yes...so?

Speculations of scientists, speculations of priests... Whose speculations are "better"?I don't know about "specualtions" but I will AGAIN wager here...my wager will be that YOU YOURSELF when suffering serious injury or illness will rely on the "speculations of scientists" and those "speculations" will have obvious adn measureable effect. You might also "pray"(if concious) or others might pray for you but this "speculation of priests" will have NO measurable effect.
I can already here your response:"How do you KNOW my praying did not influence the attempts to ressucitate my heart or whatever?"

My answer: We don't. We also don't know that the ant crawling outside the hospital did not invoke the benign sorcery of an other-dimensional sentient cube to heal you. We DO know however that if the doctors decide to ignore your plight adn do nothing, you will die whereas if they engage in their "scientific speculations" there will be a measureable effect(Blood loss will slow or stop, the heart will start beating again, etc.).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. My axiom conforms with observation adn experiment. It seems as likely as things get that matter exists and it does so independently of our wishes or perceptions. If I am blindfolded, driven to an unknown location, set free(with blindfold intact) to wander and I run into a tree, this indicates that the tree exists in and of itself(and that is only an off the cuff example).
THings typically taken on "faith" are so believed IN SPITE of or because they do NOT conform to observation or logic. God, magic, spirits etc.

Materialist axioms can be demonstrated under proper controls. Faith axioms cannot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The key to your axioms is proper controls.Got to stop you right there. Proper controls are simply constraints put on an exp[eriment to eliminate the logical possibility that OTHER explanations can account for a certain observed effect. If an alleged "Remote viewer" claims he can see things outside his physical LoS adn this ability is not hampered by distance or obstacle then a controlled experiment will involve some way to eliminate "cheating", using cameras/mirrors etc.. AN example might be the subject sitting in a room with no windows and no electronic devices allowed in and given a pad of paper and a pencil while the scientist sits in a room, also with no windows adn such with a sealed deck of flashcards that number in the hundreds ...each symbol being distinctly different. The scientist would be asked to choose a single flash card and place it back in the envlope and place the rest in a seperate container. Seal the envelope adn lock the lockbox with the other flashcards.
The 'viewer' would then be asked to draw or write a description of the symbol which was in the envelope.

There is nothing skullduggerous or underhanded about a controlled experiement adn I can only guess why supernaturalists are so opposed to the procedures.


You can prove just about anything you like if given "proper controls". In short, you're asking for a credit of confidence here.Wrong. Proper controls in science are a very specific thing(which varies for claim to claim adn experiment to experiement and no that is not a contradiction). A non-scientist can devise an experiemnt adn claim he has developed his own "proper controls" to prove that God exists or something but that does not make the experiemtn valid by scientific criteria.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe in something, I believe in something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong again! I "believe" in nothing. I accept what my senses and brain tell me because these are the only instruments I have for discerning truth about my surroundings. If I had a "faith sense" that was giving me reliable information that contradicted what my eyes and ears and rationality told me then that would be one thing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You accep