Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 226 of 336 (637593)
10-17-2011 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by bluescat48
10-16-2011 11:30 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Where does it say that swarms are life that cannot be seen by naked eyes? Winged fowls did not exist until after the most primitive mammals existed. The first winged creatures were ancestors of current dragonflies & mayflies in the carboniferous. Winged fowls in the Jurassic. Mammals from the Triassic. The order is wrong.
quote:
'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth
Ancient writing meanings require study. Small stated twice has a specific meaning; a name mentioned twice consecutvely has a connotation of affection and welcoming; etc. Swarms [small] of swarms [extremely small]. There is no other way of describing nano life forms in an ancient text.
The first winged creatures were derivitive to life forms which extended out of the ocean; land based dinosaurs thus emerged after winged airborne kinds.
The fundamental factor, more so than one's own interpretation of the details, is that such life form groupings are the first introduction of its kind, and thus an advanced view of the planet. There is absolutely no error in the texts.
quote:
As for the Temple, it was not destroyed by Babylon, but by the Chaldeans who made their capital at Babylon, after conquering the Assyrians who had previously conquered the Babylonians.
Yes; the Chaldeans [Assyrians] were vasal states of Babylon; the exile was made to Babylon, where the Jews met the first figures of a group which later became the Arab race [not to be confused with Arabians]. The point of the temple was to evidence that it was standing before the Babylonian invasion, thus the Hebrew writings is obviously older than that date, an indicator its point of dating origins is becoming more aligned as time goes by and new relics unearthed, with that given in the texts itself. I know of no other writings of this period which can match such evidences anywhere in the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by bluescat48, posted 10-16-2011 11:30 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by bluescat48, posted 10-17-2011 10:59 AM IamJoseph has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 227 of 336 (637594)
10-17-2011 1:57 AM


I worked closely for an extended period of time with a PhD Chemistry. I am sure that I will get his religious affiliation wrong, since it was either United Church of Christ or ... I'm not sure what. But he was very religious.
Here is what he told me. No chemist in any lab anywhere in the world could ever cause a reaction to occur that would not be able to occur naturally.
Is that any help?

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 2:00 AM dwise1 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 228 of 336 (637595)
10-17-2011 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Hawkins
10-17-2011 12:55 AM


quote:
Sometimes you shall notice how sneaky people are when it is said that "speciation is done in lab" or "natural selction is done in lab" they never mention on what and from what? On human from a single cell?
What is so sneaky about telling the truth ? Anyone with any understanding of evolution would know what is meant by speciation, and would know that it does not refer to generating a human being from a single celled life form.
Chuck, since you approve of Hawkins' silly nonsense, you can offer your answer, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Hawkins, posted 10-17-2011 12:55 AM Hawkins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 4:49 AM PaulK has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 229 of 336 (637596)
10-17-2011 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by dwise1
10-17-2011 1:57 AM


quote:
No chemist in any lab anywhere in the world could ever cause a reaction to occur that would not be able to occur naturally.
Define 'naturally'. Of note there is no such thing as nature in actuality. I prefer the term:
THERE IS NOTHING NEW.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by dwise1, posted 10-17-2011 1:57 AM dwise1 has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 230 of 336 (637597)
10-17-2011 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 9:24 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Correct. Life forms which creep, where the waters swarm - these precede the winged creatures; and 'swarms' are nano life forms which cannot be seen by the naked eye. We also see that the transit point of life from the oceans to land is in creepings of life forms which extended out between the waters and land [namely 'wherewith']:
This is a lot of arbitrary definitions assigned to not very specific passages. "Swarms" = "nano life forms"? Why not schools of fish? Why not groups of insects?
If I asked a biblical scholar 1000 years ago what "swarms" referred to, he would have answered me with certainty. AND, his certainty would not include any "nano life forms".
So, has the Bible changed?
Has God changed?
Or does the assigned meanings change so that you can pretend that it keeps up with science?
Sure. But if you are already an artist, it infers such artistry is already an established vocation - it means you were not the first artist which popped from nowhere 30, 000 years ago, with the next artist emerging only recenty!
So, you believe that NO ONE has EVER been able to produce ANY work of art without art being their "vocation"?
Laughable.
A coin which mentions the temple and the year and name of the king, in alphabetical hebrew to boot. Not to mention that temple was destroyed by Babylon 600 BCE. This transcends any C14 dating and alledged 30K year paintings.
So, you believe that it is easier to force a change in radioactive decay (something that no one has ever been able to do) than it is for forge a piece of currency (something that people have been doing for as long as there has been currency).
This conversation is turning out to be a great example of "Huge problems with Creationist thinking".
Do you not see any difference between a C14 dating made with the total lack of proof seen with a coin!?
I do. C14 dating can not be faked. Nor can crystal growth rates.
Meanwhile, ANYONE can produce a fake coin.
Its based on the total reversal of Ra and a sun deity referred to as monotheism. Ask the nations of Arabia and Europe why they don't worship Ra and the sun instead. Your not talking science but as a fundamentalist who cannot be touched of his beliefs.
They don't worship Ra because the Romans were particularly good soldiers and Constantine took over the Roman Empire and decided that he would make Religion A the primary religion instead of religion B.
In the meantime, the Sun is actually responsible for everything you see around you.
Got anything the Jewish Wizard can be linked to through actual evidence?
Nope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 9:24 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 4:40 AM Nuggin has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 231 of 336 (637602)
10-17-2011 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Hawkins
10-17-2011 12:39 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
That's not only retarded, but also a deceptive claim. And the fox tail is exposed as follows.
-------
The story of ToE is something like this;
Science is referring to a rather specific approach of confirming a specific kind of truth. This specific kind of truth refers to how things keep repeating themselves by following physics laws or natural rules. And the only efficient way to confirm such a kind of truth is to observe how they repeat, then develop a theory on the pattern of how they repeat, then to predict will be resulted on each repeatition. If you predict the repitition results unlimited number of times without failure, the laws/rules/theories you developed are considered a confirmed scientific truth.
For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to be falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.
Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.
Not only that, ToE (evolutionists that is) here and there makes false and deceptive claims about its capability (or lack thereof) of predictability and falsifyability. Again, if false claims are allowed in a "science", it adds futher doubt about what the theory itself is.
If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection, just like the declaration that hydrogen and oxygen shall be resulted by water resolution, you have to make the process repeatable in order to observe, to develop the theory itself and to predict what should be resulted using the theory developed.
On the other hand, if you delare the water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you can't specify that your theory only works for the water in the kitchen of your house. You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.
ToE doesn't natively follow this approach to confirm the claimed repeating process (evoluton that is), worse still it provides false claims such as "common ancestry is its predicabililty", common ancestry is what history is, and history occurred only once and thus is not a repeatable process. This is not the predictability science demands for the support of the claim that 100% species evolves by following the repeating rule of natural selection.
Yet another deceptive claim is that ToE's falsifyability and predictability is done through the experimentation of bacteria. So this is just the same claim that "you can use only the water in my kitchen". Science demands that if you declare that 100% species are evolved by following some kind of law, you'll be able to predictably see how humans, dogs, cats, or any species specified by any third party to be produced in an natural environment (the bacteria thingy is more of a manual environment instead of a natural environment).
As a matter of fact, ToE can hardly use a scientifc approach mentioned above to observe how things repeat themselves thus develop the theory and predict the result in accordance to the theory. The approach used by ToE is similar to history study instead of scientific study, they bring up one time historical evidence to try to support and confirm a repeating process. In the perspective that it adapts a totally different approach from any other science, in a sense one may say that it is not a science at all! It is even a false science in the sense that false and deceptive claims are spreaded around. When falsehood is defended religiously, well it is thus a religion!
The forgivable part of ToE is that it adapts such an approach simply because "it is so difficult to follow the correct way to do things" as it is almost impossible to establish a simulated natural environment and to give the required time for us to observe the process. Forgivable but this won't make the "theory" any 'better'.
Have you ever considered the possibility that it is scientists who know what the scientific method is and you who don't?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Hawkins, posted 10-17-2011 12:39 AM Hawkins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Chuck77, posted 10-17-2011 5:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 232 of 336 (637603)
10-17-2011 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Nuggin
10-17-2011 3:03 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:
This is a lot of arbitrary definitions assigned to not very specific passages. "Swarms" = "nano life forms"? Why not schools of fish? Why not groups of insects?
If I asked a biblical scholar 1000 years ago what "swarms" referred to, he would have answered me with certainty. AND, his certainty would not include any "nano life forms".
Swarm of swarm, means smallest of small. It does align with nano as per the state of knowledge of this generation. Sorry to surprise you so much.
quote:
So, you believe that NO ONE has EVER been able to produce ANY work of art without art being their "vocation"?
Laughable.
I never even alluded to that - that is your own twist. I don't accept an advanced artistic work when no artists or art yet exists. Its like finding Picaso on Mars.
quote:
So, you believe that it is easier to force a change in radioactive decay (something that no one has ever been able to do) than it is for forge a piece of currency (something that people have been doing for as long as there has been currency).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 3:03 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:35 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 233 of 336 (637604)
10-17-2011 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by PaulK
10-17-2011 1:59 AM


speciation; cross-speciation comes from Genesis, not ToE.
A life form can follow its kind, and the kinds [specie] are categorized by terrain. This says that a land based life form can follow another land based life form.
Genesis goes further, by seperating one land based life form from the trillions of others, namely the speech endowed one is categorized as a seperate life form. This is vindicated: humans are unique to the ratio of ONE against trillions of others by speech.
Amazing not?!
Natural Selection.
If one asks what is NS they will pour down a whole lot of gibberish, which when examined will fail all the way to the bank. Does anyone wish to describe how NS is dealt with in Genesis?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 10-17-2011 1:59 AM PaulK has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 336 (637605)
10-17-2011 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Dr Adequate
10-17-2011 4:19 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
Dr Adequate writes:
Have you ever considered the possibility that it is scientists who know what the scientific method is and you who don't?
Impressive rebuttle. Way to address Hawkins points. Scientists know more than you naner naner naner. This after all is a debating site. That's why Hawkins provided his point of view. To debate it. And you say Scientists know blah blah?
Really? Scientists are not debating here and it isn't good enough for a reply. Try again. Show us all why his comment is not at all correct. You know for the lay people who believe it like me.
It's a great comment and I totally agree with all of it. Why am I wrong to agree with it? Tell us instead of just saying Scientists know more than him.
Just like you said in the other thread to me on transitionals, how Scientists know more than me about anatomy. Show WHY they are intermediate instead of just saying the scientists know more. Evidence Doc, just like you tell Buz.
You are getting sloppy here, tired latley?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2011 4:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2011 5:40 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 238 by Larni, posted 10-17-2011 8:21 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 235 of 336 (637610)
10-17-2011 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Chuck77
10-17-2011 5:03 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
Impressive rebuttle. Way to address Hawkins points. Scientists know more than you naner naner naner. This after all is a debating site. That's why Hawkins provided his point of view. To debate it. And you say Scientists know blah blah?
Really? Scientists are not debating here and it isn't good enough for a reply. Try again. Show us all why his comment is not at all correct. You know for the lay people who believe it like me.
But the scientific method is in fact the method followed by scientists.
He might as well say: "Courtroom procedure in the US is for the two attorneys to toss a coin to decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent". It is in fact a rebuttal of that to point out that this is not what the attorneys actually do; nor is it a mere argument from authority to point this out. He may, if he wishes, argue that it would be more just and equitable to toss a coin, but he cannot argue that it is courtroom procedure to do so, because it is not what people do in courtrooms.
And in the same way, scientists do not in fact follow his epistemological program of naive inductionism, and so when he describes this he is not describing the scientific method. What he is describing might be what he would like people to do, but it is not a description of science.
Just like you said in the other thread to me on transitionals, how Scientists know more than me about anatomy.
I didn't say that, though it's true. What I said was that because they know about anatomy they would not make the mistake you wished to foist on them, and I explained why.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Chuck77, posted 10-17-2011 5:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by AdminPD, posted 10-17-2011 5:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 236 of 336 (637611)
10-17-2011 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Dr Adequate
10-17-2011 5:40 AM


Topic Please
Participants please get back to the topic of the thread or at least explain how the current drift pertains to the topic.
Reread Message 1 for a refresher.
Please do not respond to this msg.
Thanks AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2011 5:40 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 237 of 336 (637623)
10-17-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Hawkins
10-17-2011 12:39 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
Redefiinig the word science is pointless.
If I do a bit of research and use the scientific method (rather than your version of the scientific method) I'm doing, wait for it; science!
You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.
Never heard of selective breeding, eh?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Hawkins, posted 10-17-2011 12:39 AM Hawkins has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 238 of 336 (637625)
10-17-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Chuck77
10-17-2011 5:03 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
But the characterisation of the scientific method by Hawkins is wrong.
It would be like saying that when I interview two people about their beliefs about envy I would start by telling them my beliefs about envy.
This would not be (obviously) scientific and I would expect methodological critisism: but I would not do that.
It's the same with Hawkins.
He is miss characterising the scientific method. How can you have a debate if one debater does not come prepared with accurate points?
You are getting sloppy here, tired latley?
You're miss-characterising your opponent, again.
God, man: change the record.
Edited by Larni, : Formatting
Edited by Larni, : Spellink

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Chuck77, posted 10-17-2011 5:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 239 of 336 (637626)
10-17-2011 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Hawkins
10-17-2011 12:39 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
I find it amazing that you found the precise same detailed mischaracterization of evolution appropriate for three different discussion sites:
From your Message 224:
Sometimes you shall notice how sneaky people are when it is said that "speciation is done in lab" or "natural selction is done in lab" they never mention on what and from what? On human from a single cell?
Speaking of sneaky...
Most of what we see from creationists in this thread isn't discussion of creationist thinking but examples of creationist thinking. I'm not sure precisely what your post can tell us about creationist thinking. Maybe that they like to be economical?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Hawkins, posted 10-17-2011 12:39 AM Hawkins has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 240 of 336 (637627)
10-17-2011 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Hawkins
10-17-2011 12:55 AM


Hawkins writes:
Sometimes you shall notice how sneaky people are when it is said that "speciation is done in lab" or "natural selction is done in lab" they never mention on what and from what? On human from a single cell?
If you request this information in a thread where it would be on-topic, most likely in a thread in the Biological Evolution forum, then I'm sure people would be glad to help you out. This thread is in the Education and Creation/Evolution forum and is about creationist thinking.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Hawkins, posted 10-17-2011 12:55 AM Hawkins has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024