Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The irresolvability of the creation/evolution debate
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 31 of 98 (448894)
01-15-2008 3:56 PM


From this thread
quote:
Without a doubt, we can not confirm any theory, creationist or evolutionist. Every theory seems to contain some form of contradiction. In the end, the universe is just so old, and we are just so young, nothing is absolutely true, nothing is proven.
Meanwhile, these discussion are ofcourse engaging and very interesting, but no one has anything that is accepted by everyone.
Origins and the concept of God the almighty and evolution and the scary spaghetti monster, is very simply beyond anybody's comprehension!
Wha d'y all think eh?
Even IFF everything we discuss/debate/argue/hit-each-other-on-the-head is completely and utterly pointless, these discussions would still be very helpful in that we can expose each other to views that some of us might never have thought of.
As my professor used to say, no discussion is useless.

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 01-16-2008 10:01 AM teen4christ has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 32 of 98 (448980)
01-15-2008 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
11-10-2007 9:43 PM


Re: Today's Bad Math brought to you by NJ
I'm not sure what you think that means. 1/x never evaluates to zero.
I dunno. Where you talking about the summation of 1/x as x -> infinity? Because the limit of that function is 1, not zero, and again, you can never actually reach 1 because you can't evaluate for x = infinity, since infinity isn't actually a number.
Either I'm missing something or what you are saying is wrong. 1/x is unbounded at all points other that Zero. as 1/x where X gets larger without limit 1/x gets smaller and approaching zero.
ie: X=2 1/x=1/2
x=1000 1/x =1/1000
X=GOOGAL 1/X=1/GOOGAL
X-GOOGALPLEX 1/X=1/GOOGALPLEX
X=GOOGALPLEX**GOOGALPLEX 1/X=1/GOOGALPLEX**GOOGALPLEX
thus 1/x as x increases without limit 1/x approaches zero
Edited by bluescat48, : spelling
Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2007 9:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Stile, posted 01-16-2008 10:14 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 33 of 98 (449058)
01-16-2008 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by teen4christ
01-15-2008 3:56 PM


No discussion is useless, but some are still obvious
teen4christ writes:
Even IFF everything we discuss... is completely and utterly pointless, these discussions would still be very helpful in that we can expose each other to views that some of us might never have thought of.
Very true. But do not confuse the view that "no discussion is useless" with "no discussion has a solution".
Reality Man writes:
Origins and the concept of God the almighty and evolution and the scary spaghetti monster, is very simply beyond anybody's comprehension!
I don't see why this is true.
1. Origins seems to be well within our comprehension. We may not have all the answers, but progress is being made.
2. The concept of God the almighty seems to be well within our comprehension. I havn't heard of a God concept I havn't been able to comprehend, anyway. Whether or not "some God" is a part of our reality may be out of our comprehension. But as soon as someone gives their God some physical aspect (eg. "My God flooded the entire world within the last 6000 years"), it's certainly within our comprehension to test this, and show that it's not a part of reality.
3. Evolution is also well within our comprehension. So much so that it's undeniable by most of the world.
4. The scary spaghetti monster is in the same boat as God the almighty. We may not be able to comprehend the reality of "some spaghetti monster", but as soon as a a physical aspect is promoted by someone it's within our comprehension to test against reality.
Reality Man writes:
Meanwhile, these discussion are ofcourse engaging and very interesting, but no one has anything that is accepted by everyone.
I agree. But it's a good thing that "being accepted by everyone" isn't the criteria for something being a part of reality. The criteria for something being a part of reality has no concern for what anyone accepts or believes, it's only concerned with what we can show to be true. Evolution can be shown to be true. Creationism (a literal interpretation of Genesis) does not match up with what is shown in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by teen4christ, posted 01-15-2008 3:56 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 34 of 98 (449059)
01-16-2008 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by bluescat48
01-15-2008 8:28 PM


Everybody wins!
You're both right.
crashfrog writes:
1/x never evaluates to zero.
True. For any defined value of x, which I'm sure crashfrog intended.
crashfrog writes:
Were you talking about the summation of 1/x as x -> infinity? Because the limit of that function is 1
True... kinda. Here, crashfrog isn't talking about any single expression of 1/x, but the summation of all the expressions of 1/x, which does approach 1, well, as long as crashfrog intended to start at x=2, anyway. If you start at x=1, the answer is 2. And you can't start at x=0 since 1/0 is undefined.
bluescat48 writes:
thus 1/x as x increases without limit 1/x approaches zero
True. And you're talking about the single expression. crashfrog was discussing the summation.
I think, anyway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 01-15-2008 8:28 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 98 (486597)
10-23-2008 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Aven
11-10-2007 11:15 AM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Endlessly repeating: “evolution is science” doesn’t make it so, but only ignores the impossibilities of the theory and a mindset rejecting evidence, or unexposed thereto.
The same goes for religion in general and Christendom in particular. I’ll start there:
A. Standard religious Dogma:
1. We’re immortal beings who cannot die
2. God is love
3. He’ll fry most/us in everlasting agony even if we never heard of him.
4. He’s an incomprehensible trinity who frequently prayed to himself
5. He’s the Prince of Peace.
6. In his service we must slaughter each other wholesale if Caesar asks it
7. The clergy are his collection agents, pay 10% (pretax)
8. God Created the universe in 144 hours
9. Satan put the fossils there to test our faith
10. God will eradicate the universe when he comes back(must have messed up)
11. He promised “The meek will inherit the earth” but he’ll burn it!
12. Good folks all go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.
The above illogic motivated ones to conjecture an alternative:
B. Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma):
1. Every effect must have an equal cause
2. 100 billion galaxies were compressed into a point smaller than an atom
3. Came now the Big Bang
4. Don’t ask what made the BB, it was a Singularity. O ye weak of faith!
5. The universe has less than 10% of the matter required for the BB
6. So there must be Dark Matter, it’s never been found, but believe!
7. There’s also Dark Energy, ditto
8. The early non-oxygenic atmosphere was poisonous methane, ammonia, etc.
9. Lightning created oceans full of an amino-acid “prebiotic soup”
10. 100s of AAs accidentally became proteins, Just levo, left handed ones
11. Amino acid links, a dehydrating process, can't happen in H2O but did!
12. Without ozone/oxygen, solar radiation is lethal to life, but the AAs
and proteins survived
13. Suddenly the atmosphere converted to Nitrogen & Oxygen, No one knows
how.
14. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated, but it made everything alive.
15. All living things are accidents, without design or purpose
16. Accidentalism (“evolution”) took 2 billion years to produce all life
17. Yet the first metazoan fossils, trilobites, etc are only 543 million
years old and had no daddys & mommys
18. There were at least 9 extinctions, five major, the Permian event
killed 99% of species (By recent estimates)
19. A Montana T-Rex with elastic odiferous tissue is nevertheless
70,000,000 years old
20. The Lewis Overthrust, 800 Trillion tons/rock slid 50 miles sideways,
left no trace of abrasion & ground rock between layers
“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Declared Louis Bounoure, President of the Biological Society of Strasssbourg,Director of the French National Center of Scientific Research.
Prof D. M. S. Watson, 20 year Chairman/Evolution Univ/London: “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible.”
A PLAGUE ON BOTH THESE HOUSES!!
CHEMSCIENCE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Aven, posted 11-10-2007 11:15 AM Aven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2008 12:44 AM chemscience has not replied
 Message 37 by Huntard, posted 10-23-2008 1:52 AM chemscience has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 98 (486599)
10-23-2008 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by chemscience
10-23-2008 12:22 AM


You're right about the idiocy
Your list of 20 "Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)" includes at least 15 that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Of the remaining 5 some are wrong, while others are meaningless statements.
You're not doing too well. Perhaps you need to cut and paste from more accurate sources.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by chemscience, posted 10-23-2008 12:22 AM chemscience has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 37 of 98 (486601)
10-23-2008 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by chemscience
10-23-2008 12:22 AM


Re: Welcome to EvC
chemscience writes:
Endlessly repeating: “evolution is science” doesn’t make it so, but only ignores the impossibilities of the theory and a mindset rejecting evidence, or unexposed thereto.
Nor does endlessly repeating "evolution's NOT science" make it so
But let's have a look at your points shall we:
1. Every effect must have an equal cause
2. 100 billion galaxies were compressed into a point smaller than an atom
3. Came now the Big Bang
4. Don’t ask what made the BB, it was a Singularity. O ye weak of faith!
5. The universe has less than 10% of the matter required for the BB
6. So there must be Dark Matter, it’s never been found, but believe!
7. There’s also Dark Energy, ditto
8. The early non-oxygenic atmosphere was poisonous methane, ammonia, etc.
9. Lightning created oceans full of an amino-acid “prebiotic soup”
10. 100s of AAs accidentally became proteins, Just levo, left handed ones
11. Amino acid links, a dehydrating process, can't happen in H2O but did!
12. Without ozone/oxygen, solar radiation is lethal to life, but the AAs
and proteins survived
13. Suddenly the atmosphere converted to Nitrogen & Oxygen, No one knows
how.
14. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated, but it made everything alive.
These have NOTHING to do with evolution, moving on.
15. All living things are accidents, without design or purpose
They aren't "accidents" they came about by mutation and natural selection, the latter is not a random process, thus not accidental.
16. Accidentalism (“evolution”) took 2 billion years to produce all life
Don't know if this is exactly right, but I don't see what the problem is here.
17. Yet the first metazoan fossils, trilobites, etc are only 543 million
years old and had no daddys & mommys
Of course they have mommy's and daddy's, they couldn't get born otherwise, now could they. I think you mean we haven't found fossils of their "mommy's and daddy's". I'm no palaeontologist, so I don't know a lot about fossils, but I might think that's because they didn't have any "hard" parts to get fossilised.
18. There were at least 9 extinctions, five major, the Permian event
killed 99% of species (By recent estimates)
I'm pretty sure you got that number wrong, it IS true however that 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct, I don't think that happened all in the permian though. And even if it did, what's your point?
19. A Montana T-Rex with elastic odiferous tissue is nevertheless
70,000,000 years old
Going to leave this one open, as I don't know what you're talking about here. Further, I don't see this tying into evolution.
20. The Lewis Overthrust, 800 Trillion tons/rock slid 50 miles sideways,
left no trace of abrasion & ground rock between layers
Has NOTHING to do with evolution
Well, seems your points are either wrong, or have NOTHING to do with evolution. Nice try though

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by chemscience, posted 10-23-2008 12:22 AM chemscience has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 38 of 98 (486610)
10-23-2008 6:12 AM


Those wishing to contribute to this revived thread should read the opening post, Message 3. This thread is not about any specific details of the creation/evolution debate. Rather, it attempts to explore why the debate is inherently irresolvable.
To be more clear, this thread is not about whether creation and evolution are right or wrong, but about why common ground is not achievable.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by chemscience, posted 10-29-2008 12:02 AM Admin has not replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 98 (487244)
10-29-2008 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Admin
10-23-2008 6:12 AM


Should I answer Huntard?
I take it that any further response by me to Coyote & Huntard is off limits. I would like to answer them, is there any way I can without violating protocol?
Thanx for guidance!
CHEMSCIENCE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Admin, posted 10-23-2008 6:12 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Larni, posted 10-29-2008 7:27 AM chemscience has not replied
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 10-30-2008 9:58 AM chemscience has not replied
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 10-30-2008 1:09 PM chemscience has not replied

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


Message 40 of 98 (487256)
10-29-2008 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by chemscience
10-29-2008 12:02 AM


Re: Should I answer Huntard?
Your best bet is to start a new thread about the issue that you want to address.
To do this navigate to 'Proposed New Topics in 'Forum Administration'.
Then click 'New Topic' (which is on the right middle).
This should get you where you need to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by chemscience, posted 10-29-2008 12:02 AM chemscience has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 41 of 98 (487360)
10-30-2008 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by chemscience
10-29-2008 12:02 AM


Yes, please answer Huntard, just do it in the right place
chemscience writes:
I take it that any further response by me to Coyote & Huntard is off limits. I would like to answer them, is there any way I can without violating protocol?
Yes. You can always talk about pretty much whatever you'd like here. The restrictions on what you can talk about are extremely loose.
There are, however, strict restrictions on where you can talk about those things, that's all. If you've ever read any other message board, you'll know all to well that threads easily get pulled off-topic and start discussion on things that have nothing to do with the original focus. This results in dis-organization, and creates a site that is incredibly difficult to navigate when trying to find information on a topic later.
Sorry, didn't mean to single you out or anything, you've actually reacted to Admin's message in a very calm manner. I've just been annoyed lately that so many people come here and scream something like "You're censoring me"! or "You won't let me talk about __________"! Which is so overboard and immature when that's absolutely not what's going on. Again, you can discuss whatever you'd like. All you have to do is make an attempt to keep topics focused on their original topic. If you want to say something that is off-topic, just start a new topic. It's simple, and easy, and organized.
Just take Larni's advice, you can even reference this thread in order to put context on your 'new' topic (see the dBCodes (help) link on the left when creating your message or topic). The admins will help to put your topic in the right forum if you can't judge where it should go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by chemscience, posted 10-29-2008 12:02 AM chemscience has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 42 of 98 (487365)
10-30-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by chemscience
10-29-2008 12:02 AM


Re: Should I answer Huntard?
Also, I'd be willing to start that thread myself if you can't come round to it. I'll include your post and my response to it in the opening post, and we can take it from there. Just give the word and I'll make the thread.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by chemscience, posted 10-29-2008 12:02 AM chemscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 10-30-2008 1:20 PM Huntard has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 43 of 98 (487366)
10-30-2008 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Huntard
10-30-2008 1:09 PM


Re: Should I answer Huntard?
Just give the word and I'll make the thread.
Word...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 10-30-2008 1:09 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by chemscience, posted 10-30-2008 8:11 PM onifre has replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 98 (487389)
10-30-2008 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by onifre
10-30-2008 1:20 PM


Re: Should I answer Huntard?
Onifre, thanks for offering to open up a thread, which boon I gladly accept. Please include both my original post and Huntard's reply as he offered to do.
I'm not intrested in a contest of insults & smart-aleck rejoinders.
I recognize the wide range of human understandings, opinions, backgrounds and pre-dispositions, which is what makes an intellectual ball game. Such should be played to find truth, not hullabloo.
I'll give evidence or qualified authority to support my positions, but some remarks will be simply my personal conclusions/convictions/beliefs. Please suggest how I might briefly identify such comments. It's only fair that others so identify their personal ideas if they are without authoritative support. Popularity isn't evidence of truth. Childbed fever killed thousands of mothers because doctors popularly agreed that handwashing between patients was an useless inconvenience.
####################################
Here's an interesting confirmation of Scriptural accuracy, and that of the New World Translation, in translating “Natah”
Job 9:8 Around the stars he puts a seal, STRETCHING out the heavens by himself
Job 27:3 He is STRETCHING out the north over the empty place, Hanging the
earth upon nothing
Psalm 104:2 Enwrapping yourself ... STRETCHING out the heavens like a tent
Isaiah 40:22 & 42:5 The One who is STRETCHING out the heavens as a fine gauze
51:13 Jehovah ... the One STRETCHING out the heavens
Zech 12:1 The One who is STRETCHING out the heavens
NATAH, a Hebrew imperfect verb indicates an action in progress; which is best
translated into the English, STRETCHING, present perfect tense, an action going on right now.
Other translations render it as “stretched”, past tense, all done
or “stretches”, indicative of present time, but less clear, or “spreads”.
WHY IS THE NWT RENDERING SIGNIFICANT? The $75 book GALAXIES explains:
“Astronomers discovered that remote galaxies are rushing apart from one
another, and us from them, at velocities directly proportional to their distance.” This universal expansion is shown by the “red shift” detected thru celestial observations. Light from distant galaxies shifts redward. Astronomers were reluctant to accept this “radical” phenomenon when it was discovered.
Expansion of the universe is illustrated by dots on a balloon. As it inflates the dots separate but maintain their relative positions. Thus our dynamic God pre-empted 20th century astronomers by telling us he is expanding the universe, and that was 35 centuries ago in Job and repetitively by subsequent prophets.
Again, Thank you, Onifre. Let's go!
CHEMSCIENCE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 10-30-2008 1:20 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by onifre, posted 10-31-2008 12:05 PM chemscience has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 45 of 98 (487425)
10-31-2008 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by chemscience
10-30-2008 8:11 PM


Re: Should I answer Huntard?
Onifre, thanks for offering to open up a thread,
I didn't, Huntard did. He said give the word, since you didn't give the word, I gave the 'word' for you. Honestly I don't think you have much of an argument other than what you've read on creationist websites but it'll be fun to find out...you know, for shits and giggles.
Here's an interesting confirmation of Scriptural accuracy, and that of the New World Translation, in translating “Natah”
Job 9:8 Around the stars he puts a seal, STRETCHING out the heavens by himself
Job 27:3 He is STRETCHING out the north over the empty place, Hanging the
earth upon nothing
Psalm 104:2 Enwrapping yourself ... STRETCHING out the heavens like a tent
Isaiah 40:22 & 42:5 The One who is STRETCHING out the heavens as a fine gauze
51:13 Jehovah ... the One STRETCHING out the heavens
Zech 12:1 The One who is STRETCHING out the heavens
Cool, but what do you want to argue against?
If you want to equate those passages to the universes expantion then fine. I would only see an argument if you said the universe wasn't expanding. As far as Biblical quotes go, I don't care nor am I conserned with what any religous texts say, so if you just want to prove the Bibles accuracy I suggest you go on those threads and discuss it with people who can give you a good arguement, I really don't care much about scriptures.
Thus our dynamic God pre-empted 20th century astronomers by telling us he is expanding the universe, and that was 35 centuries ago in Job and repetitively by subsequent prophets.
If you say so, I could care less.
ABE:
Just some advice,
I'll give evidence or qualified authority to support my positions, but some remarks will be simply my personal conclusions/convictions/beliefs.
Evidence is great, pleading to authorities will probably not get you far in this forum. Citing journals, papers, experiments, etc. will work fine, saying stuff like "Dr. So-and So said that there is no intelligent life anywhere in the universe", will not be evidence nor will it be a fact. It will be considered pleading to authority and will make your argument look weak. Just some friendly advice.
Edited by onifre, : Advice on pleading to authority.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by chemscience, posted 10-30-2008 8:11 PM chemscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by chemscience, posted 10-31-2008 5:55 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024